Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc., Judge Ramos denied recusal, granted dismissal motions, dismissed two cases, and imposed a filing restriction.
Philippe Buhannic, TradingScreen Shareholders Association, TradingScreen Inc., and the other listed parties. Buhannic is subject to the filing restriction, and all three cases were closed.
What happened
The judgment in Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. covered three cases involving Philippe Buhannic, TradingScreen Shareholders Association, and the listed defendants.
The court denied Buhannic’s request that it step aside, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the first case, and dismissed the other two cases on its own initiative. It also barred Buhannic from filing related lawsuits in the district without first obtaining permission.
Judge Edgardo Ramos’s order allowed Buhannic to continue pending actions and to appeal, but denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed all three cases.
The detailed version
- Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10650
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 20, 2020
Background
The judgment addresses three cases:
- No. 19 Civ. 10650, brought by Philippe Buhannic against TradingScreen Inc. and the other listed defendants; - No. 20 Civ. 3421, brought by Philippe Buhannic and TradingScreen Shareholders Association against TradingScreen Inc. and the other listed defendants; and - No. 20 Civ. 4671, brought by Philippe Buhannic against TradingScreen Inc. and the other listed defendants.
The judgment states that the rulings were based on the court’s Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2020. The judgment itself does not explain the underlying claims or the court’s reasoning for dismissing them.
Rulings
The court denied Buhannic’s motion asking the court to recuse itself in No. 19 Civ. 10650. Recusal means asking a judge or court to step aside from a case.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss No. 19 Civ. 10650. It also dismissed Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 on its own initiative. The judgment does not state the specific dismissal grounds.
The court granted the defendants’ motions for an anti-filing injunction. The injunction bars Buhannic from filing future actions in the Southern District of New York relating to, or arising from, his termination as TradingScreen’s chief executive officer, his status as a TradingScreen director, or his ownership of TradingScreen shares, unless he first obtains permission from the court.
Buhannic may continue prosecuting pending actions and may appeal the Opinion and Order. To seek permission to file a new covered action, he must submit a motion titled “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File,” attach the proposed complaint and a copy of the Opinion and Order, and file the motion with the district’s Pro Se Intake Unit. A violation of the injunction may result in dismissal of the improperly filed action and sanctions, including contempt.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment states that all three cases were closed.
Effect
The order ended the three identified cases, denied Buhannic’s recusal request, and restricted his ability to file future related actions in the district without prior court permission. The judgment also affected the defendants by granting their dismissal motions in No. 19 Civ. 10650 and their motions for the anti-filing injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.