Buxbaum v. TD Bank
1:24-cv-09832
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 10, 2025Background
- Michael Buxbaum, proceeding pro se, filed an initial complaint and an amended complaint against TD Bank, alleging the bank’s refusal to activate his debit card and requesting removal of account restrictions and money transfer.
- Plaintiff sought a court order compelling TD Bank to transfer $13,050 to a third party (Payward, Inc.) and made additional requests for a summons, leave to file a second amended complaint, and a subpoena.
- The Court assessed its own subject matter jurisdiction (federal question and diversity of citizenship) and identified pleading deficiencies, including insufficient factual allegations and unclear basis for jurisdiction and venue.
- The complaints failed to specify a federal statutory or constitutional basis for jurisdiction and lacked sufficient detail to substantiate the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.
- Judge Failla granted Buxbaum leave to amend his complaint again, instructing him to clarify jurisdictional and venue grounds and to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Jurisdiction exists under both federal question and diversity due to alleged injury and citizenship diversity | No formal answer yet (TD Bank not joined on merits) | No federal question or diversity jurisdiction established |
| Factual Sufficiency | Alleges debit card not activated, funds blocked | (Not yet presented) | Pleadings are too sparse; fail Rule 8 requirements |
| Amount in Controversy | States value exceeds $75,000 | (Not yet presented) | Figures unsubstantiated, most recent claim is $13,050 |
| Venue Propriety | Claims events occurred in "New York" | (Not yet presented) | Venue not established for proper district |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (sets standard for liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (court interprets pro se pleadings for the strongest claims suggested)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 347 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2003) (amount-in-controversy presumptions)
- Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2000) (domicile definition for jurisdiction)