Hon. Michael J. Roemer

2015 – present 

Federal Judicial Service: 

  • Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York.  Entered duty on December 18, 2015, and reappointed to additional eight-year term in July 2023. 

Education: 

  • Cornell Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 1990 
  • United States Military Academy at West Point, B.S., 1982 

Professional Career: 

  • Clerk of Court, United States District Court, Western District of New York, 2009-2015 
  • Career Confidential Law Clerk to Hon. Richard J. Arcara, United States District Court, Western District of New York, 1994-2009 
  • Senior Lecturer, Niagara University, Criminal Justice Department, 2004-2005 
  • Private Practice, Jones, Day, Reavis & Progue, Cleveland, Ohio, 1992-1994 

Noteworthy Cases: 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., v. Stratfs, et al., No. 1:24-CV-00040: 

On January 10, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and various state attorneys general offices filed a lawsuit alleging that defendants charged exorbitant, advance fees to provide debt-relief services, in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rules (TSR).  Plaintiffs claimed that since January 2016, defendants, using a large web of interrelated companies and law firms acting as façades for their operation, collected at least $100,000,000 in illegal advance fees from vulnerable consumers who had accumulated extensive credit card debt that they were unable to repay.  The complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as monetary redress for consumers, and civil penalties.  Defendants argued they were exempt from the TSR pursuant to an exception which permits advance fees if the seller of the debt-relief service provides a face-to-face sales presentation to the consumer.  Following a two-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Roemer granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from collecting advance fees.  Judge Roemer determined the notaries used by defendants to conduct the presentations were independent contractors and not sellers of the debt-relief services.  Judge Roemer also found that the notaries had no substantive knowledge of the debt-relief program; could not and would not answer any of consumers’ substantive questions about the program, which had some substantial downsides for consumers; and had as their primary purpose the signing of the contract for debt-relief services.  Therefore, the presentations did not limit the potential problems the TSR was designed to remedy.  Judge Roemer found no evidence that defendants’ debt-relief services provided an appreciable economic benefit to consumers, and, conversely, found that many consumers were negatively impacted by the program.  Judge Roemer also granted plaintiffs’ request to appoint a receiver and to freeze defendants’ assets during the pendency of the lawsuit.  

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al., v. Stratfs, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37615 (W.D.N.Y. 2024)
https://casetext.com/case/consumer-fin-prot-bureau-v-stratfs-llc 

 

 

 United States v. Hormoz Mansouri, No. 1:22-CR-00034: 

Mr. Mansouri, a well-known local businessman, was charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering in connection with his application for and receipt of business loans through the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program.  These programs were established by the federal government to provide emergency financial assistance loans and other economic relief to businesses suffering the effects of the COVID19 pandemic.  The indictment alleged that Mansouri, who owned numerous business entities, submitted multiple fraudulent applications for loans in which he inflated payroll figures, falsely represented revenues and costs of goods sold, and even sought payroll assistance for companies with no employees or payroll expenses.  Mansouri sought to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the Supreme Court’s recent narrowing of federal wire fraud laws in its reversal of Louis Ciminelli’s conviction for the Buffalo Billion bidrigging scheme, was applicable to his own case. Mansouri’s theory was rejected by Judge Roemer in a report and recommendation later adopted by the District Court. 

United States v. Hormoz Mansouri, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232447 (W.D.N.Y. 2023), report and recommendation adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216277 (W.D.N.Y. 2023)
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mansouri?q=hormoz%20mansouri&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mansouri-1?q=hormoz%20mansouri&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case  

 

 

 In re Practicefirst Data Breach Litig., No. 1:21-CV-00790: 

In December 2020, hackers accessed and stole data held by Practicefirst, a medical records management service.  The stolen data encompassed records of approximately 1.2 million patients of various medical providers, and included Social Security numbers, bank account and credit card information, and medical diagnoses.  Practicefirst was then subject to a ransomware attack, whereby access to its computer system was blocked until a fee was paid to the hackers.  Four plaintiffs brought a putative class action lawsuit against Practicefirst alleging diminution of value of their personal information, violation of privacy, and increased risk of identity theft and fraud.  Judge Roemer found that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue.  Judge Roemer relied on the Supreme’s Court decision in Transunion v. Ramirez, which held that plaintiffs alleging an imminent risk of future harm to achieve standing must also allege “a separate, concrete harm that was caused by exposure to the imminent risk.”  Judge Roemer noted that the complaint alleged a “garden-variety ransomware attack” and that plaintiffs failed to allege either that they suffered identity theft or fraud, or that the hackers’ actions were a targeted attempt to obtain their data for identity theft or fraud.  Judge Roemer also found that the time and resources plaintiffs spent to protect their data from a speculative or possible future injury was insufficient to allege concrete injury.  Judge Roemer’s recommendation to dismiss the class action lawsuit for lack of standing was adopted by the District Court. 

In re Practicefirst Data Breach Litig., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272 (W.D.N.Y. 2022).
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-practicefirst-data-breach-litig?sort=relevance&p=1&type=case