Greenspan v. Qazi

Background

The court described repeated disputes between pro se plaintiff Aaron Jacob Greenspan and defendant Omar Qazi. Greenspan filed three motions concerning conduct: a motion labeled as one for contempt, a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and a compliance motion. The motions relied on Greenspan’s allegations that Qazi had posted numerous insulting or allegedly false statements about him online, including statements calling him a “criminal” and a “monster.” Greenspan also alleged that Qazi disclosed confidential settlement communications and filed a groundless motion under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

Greenspan separately requested service costs related to defendant Musk and sought permission to apply for entry of default against Smick, described in the opinion as a Delaware corporation operated by Qazi.

Conduct Motions

The court denied all three conduct motions. It said that some of the statements attributed to Qazi raised concerns, but that the factual disputes were better addressed on the merits of Greenspan’s defamation and tort claims after development of the evidentiary record. The court also noted that it had not yet ruled on the anti-SLAPP dispute. It declined, at that time, to issue an order requiring Qazi to be courteous or restrained online, in part because the limits of such an order would be difficult to define.

The court rejected Qazi’s argument that Greenspan’s Rule 11 motion was premature. Rule 11 generally requires a 21-day period between service of a sanctions motion and its filing. The record showed that Greenspan served the motion by email 22 days before filing it, after Qazi had consented in writing to electronic service through his lawyer. The court held that the three additional days provided for some forms of service under Rule 6(d) did not apply to this type of consented electronic service.

The court did not impose sanctions at that time. It warned that settlement communications must be treated as confidential unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. It also ordered that no party may file another conduct, sanctions, or civility motion without the court’s prior approval. A request for permission may not exceed three pages, may not include exhibits, attachments, or declarations, and must identify objectively compelling circumstances. The court warned that noncompliance could result in monetary or other sanctions, including professional-conduct sanctions, possible limits on evidence or claims, or dismissal under Rule 41(b).

Service Costs

The court denied Greenspan’s request for $927.93 in service costs and $2.40 for mailing the cost motion. Under Rule 4, a defendant may be responsible for service costs if the defendant fails without good cause to return a service waiver. Greenspan said he had sent the required documents to Musk by email and that Musk had not returned the waiver.

The record instead showed that Greenspan’s emails were diverted to an inbox managed by Tesla’s information-security team and were not forwarded to Musk. The court concluded that Musk himself had not received the waiver request and therefore had not failed to meet the cooperative service obligations described in Rule 4.

Default Request

The court denied Greenspan’s request for permission to seek default against Smick. This was Greenspan’s fourth request for entry of default against Smick. Greenspan argued that Smick lacked the capacity to defend itself because it allegedly had not registered with the California Secretary of State, filed required corporate statements, or paid taxes.

The court explained that a foreign corporation that has not qualified to do business in California may be unable to maintain a civil action there, but may still defend an action brought against it. The court also found that the record did not show the steps required for a failure to file corporate statements to terminate litigation capacity. Finally, failure to pay taxes alone did not prevent the corporation from defending the action; forfeiture of corporate powers required notice of forfeiture by the Franchise Tax Board. The court denied leave to apply for default and stated that no further requests for default against Smick would be allowed.

Disposition

The court denied all pending motions, including the conduct motions, the request for service costs, and the request for leave to apply for default. It did not decide the underlying defamation or tort claims in this order.