Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc.

Background

Philippe Buhannic founded TradingScreen Inc. and served as its chief executive officer until the company’s board terminated him in July 2016. The opinion states that Buhannic is a French citizen residing in Switzerland and that TradingScreen is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. After his termination, Buhannic pursued arbitration, state-court litigation, and numerous federal cases involving his termination, stock ownership, compensation, and corporate governance. He proceeded without a lawyer in the matters discussed by the court.

The opinion addresses three federal cases. In No. 19 Civ. 10650, defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and sought an order preventing Buhannic from filing additional related cases without permission. Buhannic moved for Judge Ramos’s recusal. Cases Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 were also before the court and involved related allegations.

Recusal motion

The court denied Buhannic’s request that Judge Ramos recuse himself. Buhannic argued that the judge’s prior service on a New York City commission created an improper connection with Michael Bloomberg and that the court had shown bias through earlier rulings and delays. The court concluded that these circumstances would not cause a reasonable person, knowing the facts, to question the judge’s impartiality. It also stated that prior rulings against a party and ordinary court delay do not, by themselves, establish bias.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The defendants’ motion was brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which requires dismissal when a federal court lacks legal authority to decide a case. Buhannic relied only on diversity jurisdiction. That form of jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity between the parties, and the court explained that it is unavailable when foreign citizens appear on both sides in the relevant configuration.

The court had previously found that Pierre Schroeder and Piero Grandi were citizens of foreign countries. Both were defendants in Cases Nos. 19 Civ. 10650, 20 Civ. 3421, and 20 Civ. 4671, while Buhannic was also a citizen of a foreign country. The court therefore found no complete diversity in any of the three cases. It GRANTED the defendants’ motion to dismiss No. 19 Civ. 10650 and DISMISSED Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 on its own initiative. Because it found no subject-matter jurisdiction, the court did not decide the defendants’ alternative argument that the claims were subject to arbitration agreements.

Anti-filing injunction

The court also considered whether to restrict Buhannic’s future filings. It examined his history of allegedly vexatious and duplicative litigation, his litigation motives, his representation history, the expense and burden imposed on parties and courts, and whether other sanctions would be adequate. The court concluded that all five factors favored an injunction.

The court granted the defendants’ motions for an anti-filing injunction. Buhannic is barred from filing future actions in the Southern District of New York relating to or arising from his termination as TradingScreen’s chief executive, his status as a TradingScreen director, or his ownership of TradingScreen shares unless he first obtains leave from the court. He may continue prosecuting pending actions and may appeal the opinion and order. The order states that a future case filed without the required permission may be dismissed and that Buhannic may face sanctions, including contempt.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the recusal motion, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss No. 19 Civ. 10650, dismissed Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 on the court’s own initiative, and granted the anti-filing injunction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.