Buxbaum v. Zillow Group, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00225
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL BUXBAUM, Plaintiff, 25-CV-0225 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action against Defendant Zillow Group, Inc. Plaintiff contends that Defendant refuses to list four properties for sale by owner.1 The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for the following reasons. Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court a substantially similar complaint. That case is presently pending in this court as Buxbaum v. Zillow, Inc., 24-CV-10054-LTS. In the earlier action, Plaintiff contends that he was unable to list the same four properties for sale by owner with Zillow.2 That action cannot proceed until Plaintiff pays the filing fees or submits an application to proceed in forma pauperis. As this new complaint raises the same claims already raised in Buxbaum, 24-CV-10054, no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit.3

1 The properties are described in the complaint, 25-CV-0225, 1, as: (1) 27A Heritage Drive, New City, N Y 10956; (2) 198 Monitor Street, Apt 2A, Brooklyn, NY 11222; (3) 19 Braemar Court, New City, NY 10956; and (4) 214 Foltim Way, Congers, NY 10920.

2 The properties are described in the complaint, 24-CV-10054, 1, as: (1) 27A Heritage Drive, New City, NY 10956; (2) 198 Monitor Street, Apt 2A, Congers, NY 10920; (3) 19 Braemar Court, New City, NY 10956; and (4) 214 Foltim Way, Congers, NY 10920.

3 The earlier action is against Defendant Zillow, Inc., and the new action is against Defendant Zillow Group, Inc. If Plaintiff needs to add or substitute a defendant, he can, to the extent consistent with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, do so by filing an amended complaint in Buxbaum, 24-CV-10054, rather than bringing a new action. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 24-CV-10054 (LTS). CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the pending case under docket number 24-CV-10054 (LTS).

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge