Azzarmi v. Neubauer

Background

Aasir Azzarmi, representing himself, sued Donald Neubauer, CoventBridge Group (USA), Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Sedgwick SIU, Inc., QBE North America Operations, and unidentified defendants in connection with the termination of his employment by Delta Airlines. After several amended complaints and motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the action with prejudice in September 2022. The court later granted Azzarmi’s request for reconsideration, allowed a third amended complaint, and in September 2024 dismissed all claims except Azzarmi’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Sedgwick SIU, Inc.

Azzarmi then filed two motions seeking reconsideration of the September 2024 decision. The remaining and former defendants sought sanctions and asked the court to strike portions of Azzarmi’s submissions. They argued that his filings were abusive, that he repeatedly violated the court’s rules, and that the case should be dismissed or that fees and costs should be imposed.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy available only when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or a clear legal error or manifest injustice. The court found that Azzarmi did not meet this strict standard.

The court rejected Azzarmi’s arguments concerning the withdrawal of special solicitude, meaning the additional procedural flexibility sometimes given to self-represented litigants. The court held that it had adequately considered Azzarmi’s litigation experience and familiarity with motions to dismiss before withdrawing that flexibility at this stage. It also found no legal requirement for advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before withdrawing special solicitude in the circumstances presented.

The court further held that it properly applied the ordinary pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the heightened standard under Rule 9(b) only to fraud claims. It rejected Azzarmi’s argument that the court had improperly converted the defendants’ motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion. The court said it properly declined to accept allegations first made in the third amended complaint that contradicted earlier pleadings, including the allegation that Neubauer was a New York City police officer or detective. The court noted that the earlier pleadings described Neubauer as a retired police officer and suggested that he had left the police force in 2006.

The court also rejected Azzarmi’s arguments concerning claims under the Gender Motivated Violence Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, Sections 1985 and 1986, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It stated that the constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were properly disposed of because Azzarmi had not alleged state action. The court also upheld its treatment of the tort claims, including fraud, prima facie tort, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical malpractice, negligent hiring and training, and conspiracy. Regarding medical malpractice, the court concluded that the allegations did not establish a doctor-patient relationship because Dr. Panos examined Azzarmi on behalf of his employer rather than providing medical treatment.

Finally, the court rejected Azzarmi’s argument that it was required to treat later filings as amendments to his complaint or grant further leave to amend. Azzarmi had already been given two opportunities to amend, and the court found no clear legal error in denying additional amendment.

Sanctions

The court denied the requests to dismiss the action under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with rules or court orders. Although the court found that Azzarmi had again violated its rules, it concluded that dismissal was too extreme at that stage. The court emphasized that dismissal is the harshest sanction and should generally be used only in extreme situations.

The court also denied the requests for attorney’s fees and costs. It explained that 42 U.S.C. § 1927 does not apply to self-represented litigants, but that courts may use their inherent authority to sanction litigants who act in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. The court found that Azzarmi’s conduct could support such a sanction, but concluded that attorney’s fees were not appropriate at that time.

The court warned that the order was Azzarmi’s final warning. It stated that continued failure to follow the court’s rules could result in monetary sanctions or dismissal of the entire matter.

Motion to Strike

The court denied the defendants’ request to strike allegedly scandalous or abusive material from Azzarmi’s filings. Although the court found some of Azzarmi’s language directed at the defendants disturbing and concerning, it concluded that the material had not reached the level requiring the court to use its inherent authority to strike the filings. The court again warned that continued harmful language could lead to sanctions, striking filings, or dismissal of the claims.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Azzarmi’s motion for reconsideration in full. The court also denied the defendants’ motions for sanctions and to strike in full, and directed the clerk to terminate the motions listed as Docket Numbers 123, 134, 140, and 143.