Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-02915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Judge Ramos dismissed Buhannic’s complaint with prejudice because it was unintelligible and failed to satisfy Rule 8.
Philippe Buhannic’s case was dismissed with prejudice, ending his claims against Tradingscreen Inc.; his request to appeal without paying filing fees was also denied.
What happened
In Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc., Philippe Buhannic, representing himself, alleged that he wanted to exercise majority voting power in Tradingscreen and had lost control of the company. He sought changes to board meetings, the annual meeting, and corporate transactions.
The court found that the handwritten complaint did not clearly explain the claim or provide enough information for Tradingscreen to respond and prepare for trial. It also noted possible defenses based on Buhannic’s prior litigation.
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the case with prejudice without allowing Buhannic to amend because the complaint was too confused and unintelligible, and amendment would be futile. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Buhannic v. Tradingscreen Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02915
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 20, 2020
Background
Philippe Buhannic filed a handwritten complaint while representing himself. He alleged: “Exercise my majority vote of the common stocks of TradingScreen.” He described his injuries as losing control of his company and a $650 million loss. He requested written consent concerning board meetings, organization of an annual meeting, and blocking corporate transactions.
Rule 8 analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court explained that a pleading must give the opposing party fair notice of the claim so that the party can answer, prepare for trial, and identify the nature of the case.
The court concluded that Buhannic’s complaint was “barely intelligible” and did not fulfill those functions. The court also noted potential defenses based on Buhannic’s prior litigation in several courts and before an arbitration tribunal. It recognized that complaints by people without lawyers are generally read liberally and that courts ordinarily allow amendment when a complaint is dismissed solely for failing to provide a short and plain statement. But it found that this complaint was so confused, ambiguous, vague, or unintelligible that its substance, if any, was not clear.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court did not grant leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile and that justice did not require it. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Buhannic permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.