DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT DOC # DATE FILED: 4/25/2025 Michael Buxbaum v. County of Rockland 7:25-cv-2088-NSR The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s letter dated April 24, 2025, requesting a pre-motion conference, a “gatekeeper order,” and to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s motions and applications for ex parte relief as premature (ECF No. 32) (attached hereto). First, the Court directs Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s letter dated April 24, 2025 to address the Defendant’s requests for a pre-motion conference and a “gatekeeper order.” Second, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment and ex parte relief in ECF Nos. 13, 15, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 29 without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 13, 15) are premature and fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice. Plaintiff’s motions for ex parte relief (ECF Nos. 19, 23, 25, and 28) fail to a provide legal basis for seeking the proposed relief, fail to provide a basis for why it should be considered ex parte, fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice, and are without an affidavit of merit. Third, Plaintiffs letters requesting a signature of the previously filed subpoena duces tecum (ECF Nos. 17, 26) also fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice and are otherwise improper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests at ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 28 are DENIED without prejudice to renew. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.15. Dated: April 25, 2025 sys.
Z ef
NELSON S, ROMAN United States District Judge
\ . \, [ SARETSKY KATZ DRANOFF WEISSMAN & MAYNARD, L.L.P. 565 Taxter Road, Suite 210 Elmsford, New York 10523 TELEPHONE (212) 973-9797 FACSIMILE (212) 973-0939 E-MAIL rweissman@skdwmlaw.com www.skdllp.com April 24, 2025 VIA ECF Hon. Nelson Roman United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York 300 Quarropas Street, Courtroom 218 White Plains, New York 10601-4150 Re: Michael Buxbaum vy. County of Rockland Docket No.: 25-CV-02088 (NSR) Dear Judge Roman: Defendant the County of Rockland (“the County”) requests a pre-motion conference or briefing schedule regarding a proposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff pro se Michael Buxbaum’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (PACER Doc. 12) and a proposed motion for a gatekeeper order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing further pro se actions without advance Court approval. Plaintiff Pro Se’s Current Complaint Should Be Dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety forfailure to state a cause of action. Even a pro se plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to meet the plausibility standard established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See Jackson v. Cty. of Rockland, 450 F. App’x 15, 18 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff's claims are not even comprehensibly pleaded, much less plausibly pleaded. Plaintiff seeks awards of $5.5 million and nearly $94 million pursuant to the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729). (PACER Doc. 12, Pg. 6) However, the Complaint does not identify the allegedly false claims, specify how many there were, set forth the dates they were made, plead who made the claims or specify what is allegedly false about them. The most that can be gleaned from the Complaint is that the claims have something to do with “pensions and... other post- employment benefits” “including a second pension that is overfunded with money paid from the Federal Government”, and that the County supposedly “is fraudulently reporting audited financial reports and making false claims for money to the American Federal Government and fraudulently spending Federal money... with fraudulent actuarial computations that... have no Mathematical fact...” (PACER Doc. 12, Pg. 5) Significantly, qui tam FCA complaints are subject to the heightened pleading standards of F.R.C.P. 9(b), which, “requires a party alleging fraud to ‘state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,’ which ‘ordinarily requires a complaint alleging fraud to (1) specify the
HAporni.l N2e4l,s 2o0n2 R5o mán Page 2
statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2) identify the speaker, (3) state where and when the statements were made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.’” U.S. ex rel. Askari v. Pharmerica Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227, at *5-6, 2024 WL 1132191 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2024). Further, “To be actionable under the False Claims Act, ‘[a] misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement must be material to the Government's payment decision.’” Askari, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227, at *8, citing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S., 579 U.S. 176, 181 (2016). This standard is “demanding.” Universal Health, 579 U.S. at 194. The Complaint does not even remotely plead facts meeting these demanding standards and it should, therefore, be dismissed.
Moreover, as a procedural matter, even if the Complaint contained enough factual allegations to make it comprehensible and plausible, it is not brought in the name of the government, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), nor does it indicate that it was first filed with the government in camera and under seal, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).
A Gatekeeper Order Is Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Scores of Frivolous Pro Se Lawsuits
Between December 9, 2024 and April 16, 2024 Plaintiff has filed no fewer than 109 pro se lawsuits in this Court and two more in the Eastern District of New York. (See annexed index of cases.) Of these, 94 have already been dismissed. Plaintiff’s vexatious and frivolous filings include five cases against the County of Rockland and its officials, at least eleven against other governmental entities and officials and approximately 93 against private parties. Given this flagrant abuse of the court system, an anti-filing injunction (a “gatekeeper order”), prohibiting Plaintiff from commencing further pro se litigation without advance court approval, is warranted.
“In determining whether to issue an anti-filing injunction, a district court considers ‘(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.’” Wood v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164924, 2024 WL 4164485 (SDNY Sept. 12, 2024), citing Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). “[T]he Second Circuit has never required that all five factors be met….” Wood, supra citing Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33075, 2021 WL 5170726, at *3-4 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2021).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT DOC # DATE FILED: 4/25/2025 Michael Buxbaum v. County of Rockland 7:25-cv-2088-NSR The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s letter dated April 24, 2025, requesting a pre-motion conference, a “gatekeeper order,” and to dismiss several of Plaintiff’s motions and applications for ex parte relief as premature (ECF No. 32) (attached hereto). First, the Court directs Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s letter dated April 24, 2025 to address the Defendant’s requests for a pre-motion conference and a “gatekeeper order.” Second, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment and ex parte relief in ECF Nos. 13, 15, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 29 without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 13, 15) are premature and fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice. Plaintiff’s motions for ex parte relief (ECF Nos. 19, 23, 25, and 28) fail to a provide legal basis for seeking the proposed relief, fail to provide a basis for why it should be considered ex parte, fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice, and are without an affidavit of merit. Third, Plaintiffs letters requesting a signature of the previously filed subpoena duces tecum (ECF Nos. 17, 26) also fail to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice and are otherwise improper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests at ECF Nos. 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 28 are DENIED without prejudice to renew. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.15. Dated: April 25, 2025 sys.
Z ef
NELSON S, ROMAN United States District Judge
\ . \, [ SARETSKY KATZ DRANOFF WEISSMAN & MAYNARD, L.L.P. 565 Taxter Road, Suite 210 Elmsford, New York 10523 TELEPHONE (212) 973-9797 FACSIMILE (212) 973-0939 E-MAIL rweissman@skdwmlaw.com www.skdllp.com April 24, 2025 VIA ECF Hon. Nelson Roman United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York 300 Quarropas Street, Courtroom 218 White Plains, New York 10601-4150 Re: Michael Buxbaum vy. County of Rockland Docket No.: 25-CV-02088 (NSR) Dear Judge Roman: Defendant the County of Rockland (“the County”) requests a pre-motion conference or briefing schedule regarding a proposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff pro se Michael Buxbaum’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (PACER Doc. 12) and a proposed motion for a gatekeeper order prohibiting Plaintiff from filing further pro se actions without advance Court approval. Plaintiff Pro Se’s Current Complaint Should Be Dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety forfailure to state a cause of action. Even a pro se plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to meet the plausibility standard established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). See Jackson v. Cty. of Rockland, 450 F. App’x 15, 18 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff's claims are not even comprehensibly pleaded, much less plausibly pleaded. Plaintiff seeks awards of $5.5 million and nearly $94 million pursuant to the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729). (PACER Doc. 12, Pg. 6) However, the Complaint does not identify the allegedly false claims, specify how many there were, set forth the dates they were made, plead who made the claims or specify what is allegedly false about them. The most that can be gleaned from the Complaint is that the claims have something to do with “pensions and... other post- employment benefits” “including a second pension that is overfunded with money paid from the Federal Government”, and that the County supposedly “is fraudulently reporting audited financial reports and making false claims for money to the American Federal Government and fraudulently spending Federal money... with fraudulent actuarial computations that... have no Mathematical fact...” (PACER Doc. 12, Pg. 5) Significantly, qui tam FCA complaints are subject to the heightened pleading standards of F.R.C.P. 9(b), which, “requires a party alleging fraud to ‘state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,’ which ‘ordinarily requires a complaint alleging fraud to (1) specify the
HAporni.l N2e4l,s 2o0n2 R5o mán Page 2
statements that the plaintiff contends were fraudulent, (2) identify the speaker, (3) state where and when the statements were made, and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.’” U.S. ex rel. Askari v. Pharmerica Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227, at *5-6, 2024 WL 1132191 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2024). Further, “To be actionable under the False Claims Act, ‘[a] misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement must be material to the Government's payment decision.’” Askari, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6227, at *8, citing Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S., 579 U.S. 176, 181 (2016). This standard is “demanding.” Universal Health, 579 U.S. at 194. The Complaint does not even remotely plead facts meeting these demanding standards and it should, therefore, be dismissed.
Moreover, as a procedural matter, even if the Complaint contained enough factual allegations to make it comprehensible and plausible, it is not brought in the name of the government, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), nor does it indicate that it was first filed with the government in camera and under seal, as required by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2).
A Gatekeeper Order Is Appropriate Given Plaintiff’s Scores of Frivolous Pro Se Lawsuits
Between December 9, 2024 and April 16, 2024 Plaintiff has filed no fewer than 109 pro se lawsuits in this Court and two more in the Eastern District of New York. (See annexed index of cases.) Of these, 94 have already been dismissed. Plaintiff’s vexatious and frivolous filings include five cases against the County of Rockland and its officials, at least eleven against other governmental entities and officials and approximately 93 against private parties. Given this flagrant abuse of the court system, an anti-filing injunction (a “gatekeeper order”), prohibiting Plaintiff from commencing further pro se litigation without advance court approval, is warranted.
“In determining whether to issue an anti-filing injunction, a district court considers ‘(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties.’” Wood v. Mut. Redevelopment Houses, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164924, 2024 WL 4164485 (SDNY Sept. 12, 2024), citing Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). “[T]he Second Circuit has never required that all five factors be met….” Wood, supra citing Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33075, 2021 WL 5170726, at *3-4 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2021). In fact, the Second Circuit held in Safir, 792 F.2d at 24, that, “A district court not only may but should protect its ability to carry out its constitutional functions against the threat of onerous, multiplicitous, and baseless litigation” by issuing an anti-filing injunction. See also Hai Dong Li v. Alibaba Grp. Holding, Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3787, at *5-6 (2d Cir. Feb. 17, 2023). Thus, in Wood, supra, Judge Torres issued an anti-filing injunction, holding:
[I]t seems unlikely that a lesser sanction would deter Plaintiffs from refiling a similar action in the future…. Plaintiffs have filed seven related cases over the past SARETSKY KATZ DRANOFF WEISSMAN & MAYNARD, L.L.P. Hon. Nelson Roman April 24, 2025 Page 3 ten years, the first six of which have been dismissed .... [A] New York state court previously issued an anti-filing injunction after finding that Plaintiffs’ “persistent filing of meritless actions” had led them to “forfeit[] their right to free access to the courts.”... Plaintiffs filed a related action in state court less than a month after the injunction issued,... demonstrating the gravity of Plaintiffs’ disregard for the judicial process and the need for intervention. Id, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164924 at *5-8 Here, every Safir factor mitigates in favor of issuance of an anti-filing injunction. Plaintiff’s history of frivolous pro se filings far exceeds the seven cases referenced in Wood. This frivolousness, and Plaintiff’s intent to baselessly harass the defendants, is amply illustrated by the below summaries of some of his cases: e Buxbaum vy. Hochul, 25-cv-3026. Plaintiff sought the removal of the New York State Governor because she did not attend a funeral and thus “sanctioned the execution and assassination of the worst triple homicide in New York State history”; e Buxbaum vy. Bongiorno, 25-cv-223. Plaintiff sought a warrant of eviction (against whom he does not state) because “Michael Bongiorno, Town of Clarkstown Justice is creating court hearings that have no basis in due process.” e Buxbaum vy. Walsh, 25-cv-689. Plaintiff sought $5.3 million claiming that District Attorney Walsh was monitoring Plaintiff’s personal electronic equipment; e Buxbaum vy. Falco, 25-cv-598. Plaintiff sought $5.3 million claiming that Sheriff Falco keeps the temperature too low at the Rockland County Jail; e Buxbaum vy. Edwin Day, 25-cv-595. Plaintiff sought $5.3 million complaining that County Executive Day “spends money to employ county workers at the Rockland County Jail and other Rockland County social programs by transferring money to budgets not based upon necessity....”; Notably, Chief Judge Swain has had to create a standing order to specifically deal with Plaintiff’s endless pro se lawsuits. See In Re Michael Buxbaum, Order of Dismissal, 25-cv-689, Doc. 3. Since this procedure has not slowed Plaintiff’s filings, the only way to rein in Plaintiff’s abuse of his pro se status is to issue a gatekeeper order. Finally, prior to Plaintiff’s April 23, 2025 service of his Complaint, he filed two motions for summary judgment and seven applications for ex parte relief (PACER Docs. 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 29) including a request for issuance of a subpoena unless the County pays Plaintiff $25 million, a request that the County’s pension system be put into receivership and five applications for relief against parties in other cases. These applications should all be denied as premature. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, □□□ ithe bee. Robert B. Weissman
I PAC ER Party Search Results Case Locator Criteria: Party Search; Last Name: [Buxbaum]; First Name:
Count: 119 (3 pages) Page: 3 Name pasion T= | Case Title
Michael (db) 1:2009bk17876 Michael Taylor Buxbaum and Rache Rita Buxbaum Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00960 Buxbaum v. Hirschler Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01432 Buxbaum v. Travis et al Michael (pla) 1:2024cVv09388 Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase Michael (pla) 1:2021cv09553 Buxbaum v. Cornell et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03026 Buxbaum v. Hochul Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03034 Buxbaum v. Fox Corporation Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03038 Buxbaum v. Major League Baseball Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09546 Buxbaum v. Sommer et al Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09784 Buxbaum v. Webull Financial LLC Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09785 Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase & Co, Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09832 Buxbaum v. TD Bank Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09894 Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv09895 Buxbaum v. Intuit, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10054 Buxbaum v. Zillow, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10060 Buxbaum v., Intuit, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10077 Buxbaum v. Zillow Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10080 Buxbaum v. Sommer et al Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10061 Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10062 Buxbaum v. Block, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10063 Buxbaum v. One Finance, Inc. dba Walmart Michael (pla) 1:2024cv10081 Buxbaum v. TD Bank Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00223 Buxbaum v. Bongiorno Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00224 Buxbaum v. TD Bank N.A. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00225 Buxbaum v. Zillow Group, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00296 Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00297 Buxbaum v. Zillow Group, Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00367 Buxbaum v. Paypal, Inc, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00368 Buxbaum v. Shtabsky et al
Name Case Number | Case litle
Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00359 Buxbaum v, Coinbase, Inc. Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00361 Buxbaum v. Payward, Inc. Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00404 Buxbaum v., Experian Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00457 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum et al Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00509 Buxbaum v. Robert C. Gottleib & Associates PLLC Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00458 Buxbaum v. Legal Aid Society Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00517 . Buxbaum vy. Bank of America, N.A. Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00518 Buxbaum v. Town of Clarkstown Police Department Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00519 Buxbaum v. Kevin Conway, Esa. Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00523 Buxbaum v. Bongiorno Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00521 Buxbaum v. Hopkins Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00524 Buxbaum v. Bridandi Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00531 Buxbaum v. Smith Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00532 Buxbaum v. Smith Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00526 Buxbaum v. Cornell Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00528 Buxbaum v. Hesse Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00527 Buxbaum v. Goldsmith Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00525 Buxbaum v. Clarkstown Police Department Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00529 Buxbaum v. Pollak Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00530 Buxbaum v, Schroeder Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00590 Buxbaum v. Kahn Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00595 Buxbaum v. Day Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00597 Buxbaum v. Ellenzweig Buxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00598 Buxbaum v. Falco
PACER Service Center 04/24/2025 08:49:10 User weissmannwl Client Code Description All Court Types Party Search All Courts; Name Buxbaum, Michael; All Courts; Page: 1 1 ($0.10) *** Previously Billed ***
PACER FAQ Privacy & Security Contact Us
Ti p AC ER Party Search Results Case Locator | Criteria: Party Search; Last Name: [Buxbaum]; First Name:
Count: 119 (3 pages) Page: 3 Name porting te | Case Title
Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00602 Buxbaum v. Kallen Michael (pla) 1:2025cvO00606 Buxbaum v. Rosano Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00608 Buxbaum v. Legal Aid Society of Rockland County Michael (pla) 1:2025cvO00603 Buxbaum v. Kaplan Michael (pla) 1:2025cvO0605 Buxbaum v. Mendolsohn Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00604 Buxbaum vy. Laurenzi Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00610 Buxbaum v, Rocco's Italian Cuisine & Pizza Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00611 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00612 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00613 Buxbaum v. Zillow Group Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00686 Buxbaum v. Sands Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00687 Buxbaum v. Travis et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00689 Buxbaum v. Walsh III Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00690 Buxbaum v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00667 Buxbaum v. Hirschler, Esa. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00668 Buxbaum v. Penn Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00701 Buxbaum v. Shtabsky et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00792 Buxbaum v. DeFilippo Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00793 Buxbaum v. Streicher Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00794 Buxbaum v. Zweig Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00796 Buxbaum v. Bonacorso Michael (pla) 7:2025cv00797 Buxbaum v. Del Rivero uxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00798 Buxbaum v. loannou et al uxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv00801 Buxbaum v. Berger uxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv01060 Buxbaum v. Bonacorso uxbaum, Michael (pla) 7:2025cv01064 Buxbaum v. loannou et al uxbaum, Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01065 Buxbaum v. Del Rivero
rarty Name | Case NUMber | Case [litle
Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01067 Buxbaum v. Shtabsky et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01068 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01070 Buxbaum v. LeMoullec et al Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01956 Buxbaum v. Bank of America N.A. Michael (pla) 7:2025cv01958 Buxbaum v. Key Star Capital Fund Il LP. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv01954 Buxbaum v. Town of Clarkstown Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02088 Buxbaum v. Rockland County Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02339 Buxbaum v. Walt Disney Co. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02765 Buxbaum v. JetBlue Airways Corporation Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02766 Buxbaum v. Zillow Group Inc. Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02770 Buxbaum v. Spirit Airlines LLC Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02807 Buxbaum v. Comcast Corporation Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02856 Buxbaum v. Montefiore Nyack Hospital Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02867 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02887 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum Michael (pla) 1:2025cv02888 Buxbaum v. Buxbaum Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03052 Buxbaum v. Bondi Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03053 Buxbaum v. Trump Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03054 Buxbaum v. Wanamaker Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03055 Buxbaum v. DiNapoli Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03057 Buxbaum v. James Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03059 Buxbaum v. Suzuki Motor USA, LLC Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03089 Buxbaum v. Gotham FC Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03091 Buxbaum v. United States Soccer Federation Inc Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03092 Buxbaum v. New York University
PACER Service Center 04/24/2025 08:49:59 User weissmannw1 Client Code Description All Court Types Party Search All Courts; Name Buxbaum, Michael; All Courts; Page: 2 1 ($0.10) *** Previously Billed ***
— p AC ER Party Search Results | | | Case Locator Criteria: Party Search; Last Name: [Buxbaum]; First Name:
Count: 119 (3 pages) Page: 3
Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03094 Buxbaum v. Falco Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03124 Buxbaum v. Comcast Corporation Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03125 Buxbaum v. NVIDIA Corporation Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03152 Buxbaum v. Dreamscape Companie LLC Michael (pla) 1:2025cv03154 Buxbaum v. letterstream.com MICHAEL (dft) 2:2005cv01933 POLLARD etal v. DOYLESTOWN HOSPITAL et al Michael Jay (db) 7:2024bk22907 Michael Jay Buxbaum Michael Jay (db) 7:2024bk22907 Michael Jay Buxbaum Michael Jay (db) 7:2024bk22907 Michael Jay Buxbaum Michael T. (db) 1:2009bk17876 Michael Taylor Buxbaum and □□□□□□ Rita Buxbaum Michael Taylor (db) 1:2009bk17876 Michael Taylor Buxbaum and Rachel Rita Buxbaum > Service Center 04/24/2025 08:50:02 weissmannwl1 Code All Court Types Party Search All Courts; Name Buxbaum, Michael; All Courts; Page: 3
1 ($0.10) *** Previously Billed ***