Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-03421
- 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 injunction.
Philippe Buhannic is directly affected by the dismissal of the cases, the anti-filing injunction, and the requirement to obtain court permission before filing future related actions in the Southern District of New York. The listed defendants are affected by the dismissal rulings and the granted anti-filing-injunction motions.
What happened
Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. involved three cases concerning Philippe Buhannic’s disputes related to TradingScreen, including his termination as CEO, his status as a director, and his ownership of shares. The judgment also listed the TradingScreen Shareholders Association as a plaintiff in one case.
The court denied Buhannic’s request that it remove itself from the first case, granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss that case, and dismissed the other two cases on its own. It also barred Buhannic from filing related actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission from the court. All three cases were closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the underlying Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2020. Buhannic may continue pending actions and may appeal, but any new related filing must follow the court’s stated permission procedure.
The detailed version
- Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03421
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 20, 2020
Cases and parties
The judgment addresses three Southern District of New York cases:
- No. 19 Civ. 10650: Philippe Buhannic v. TradingScreen Inc. and individual defendants. - No. 20 Civ. 3421: Philippe Buhannic and TradingScreen Shareholders Association v. TradingScreen Inc., individual defendants, TCI VI, L.P., and TCV Member Fund L.P. - No. 20 Civ. 4671: Philippe Buhannic v. TradingScreen Inc., individual defendants, TCI VI, L.P., and TCV Member Fund L.P.
The judgment states that the disputes relate to Buhannic’s termination as TradingScreen’s chief executive officer, his status as a TradingScreen director, and his ownership of TradingScreen shares.
Rulings
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2020:
- Buhannic’s motion asking the court to recuse itself in No. 19 Civ. 10650 was denied. - The defendants’ motions to dismiss No. 19 Civ. 10650 were granted. - Nos. 20 Civ. 3421 and 20 Civ. 4671 were dismissed by the court on its own initiative. - The defendants’ motions for an anti-filing injunction were granted.
An anti-filing injunction is an order limiting a party’s ability to bring new lawsuits. 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 leave, or permission, from the court.
Filing requirements and appeal
Any request for permission to file must use the caption “Application Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to File.” Buhannic must attach the proposed complaint and a copy of the Opinion and Order. The request must be filed with the Southern District’s Pro Se Intake Unit. A filing made without the required permission will be dismissed for failure to comply with the order, and Buhannic may face sanctions, including contempt.
The order allows Buhannic to continue prosecuting pending actions and states that he may appeal the Opinion and Order. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment states that all three cases were closed.
Limits of the provided text
The supplied text is the judgment, not the underlying Opinion and Order. It therefore does not provide the court’s detailed reasoning for denying recusal, granting dismissal in No. 19 Civ. 10650, dismissing the other two cases, or granting the anti-filing injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.