Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-04671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc., Judge Ramos denied recusal, granted dismissal motions, dismissed two related cases, and imposed a filing injunction.
Philippe Buhannic is subject to the filing restriction and the denial of fee-free appellate status. The three cases were closed, affecting Buhannic, the Tradingscreen Shareholders Association in No. 20 Civ. 3421, and the listed defendants.
What happened
Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. involved three federal cases brought by Philippe Buhannic, including one with the Tradingscreen Shareholders Association as a co-plaintiff. The judgment refers to disputes concerning Buhannic’s termination as TradingScreen’s chief executive, his status as a director, and his ownership of shares.
The court denied Buhannic’s request that it recuse itself and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in No. 19 Civ. 10650. It also dismissed Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 on its own initiative. The court barred Buhannic from filing future related actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission, while allowing him to continue pending actions and appeal the order.
Judge Edgardo Ramos’s judgment also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, based on the court’s certification that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The judgment closed all three cases.
The detailed version
- Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04671
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 20, 2020
Background
The judgment covers three cases:
- In No. 19 Civ. 10650, Philippe Buhannic sued TradingScreen Inc. and other listed defendants. - In No. 20 Civ. 3421, Philippe Buhannic and the Tradingscreen Shareholders Association sued TradingScreen Inc. and other listed defendants. - In No. 20 Civ. 4671, Philippe Buhannic sued TradingScreen Inc. and other listed defendants.
The judgment states that the disputes related to Buhannic’s termination as TradingScreen’s chief executive officer, his status as a TradingScreen director, or his ownership of TradingScreen shares. It does not provide the factual or legal reasoning from the Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2020.
Rulings
The court denied Buhannic’s motion to recuse, meaning his request that the court remove itself from No. 19 Civ. 10650. It granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss that case. The judgment does not state whether that dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court also dismissed Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 on its own initiative. The judgment does not state the specific basis for those dismissals or whether they were with or without prejudice.
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.
Filing Restrictions and Appeal
Buhannic may continue prosecuting pending actions and may appeal the Opinion and Order. Any request for permission to file must use the caption “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File,” include the proposed complaint, and include a copy of the Opinion and Order. The request must be filed with the Southern District’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
If Buhannic files a covered action without first obtaining permission, the action will be dismissed for violating the order, and he may face sanctions, including contempt.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The judgment states that all three cases were closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.