In Re: Ahmed Husain Zubair
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-08829
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In re Ahmed Husain Zubair: Judge Briccetti denied Zubair’s motion to strike Fay Servicing’s letters and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ahmed Husain Zubair, who was representing himself, and Fay Servicing, LLC and its attorney Courtney R. Williams. The order also imposed a service reminder on counsel and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
What happened
In re Ahmed Husain Zubair concerned Ahmed Husain Zubair’s request to remove letters that Fay Servicing, through its lawyer, filed with the court. Zubair was representing himself and had asked to proceed without paying court fees.
Zubair argued that the letters were unlawful private communications with the court. The court explained that he had received the letters and that they were publicly filed on the court’s electronic docket, so they were not private communications. The court also reminded Fay Servicing’s lawyer that filings must be properly served on Zubair because he had not agreed in writing to electronic service.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion to strike. He also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- In Re: Ahmed Husain Zubair · No. 7:20-cv-08829
- Vincent Briccetti
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
Ahmed Husain Zubair was the debtor and appellant. Fay Servicing, LLC, acting as servicing agent for Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, doing business as Christiana Trust, not individually but as trustee for Hilldale Trust, was the appellee. Zubair was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees.
On February 9, 2021, Zubair moved to strike attorney Courtney R. Williams’s letters to the court, arguing that they were unlawful personal private communications with the court. The motion concerned documents identified as docket entries 11, 12, and 14.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the motion. It explained that a private communication with the court occurs when a lawyer or party communicates with the court while the opposing lawyer or party is not present. The court found that the letters did not fit that description because Zubair’s motion showed that he had received them, and the documents had been filed publicly on the court’s electronic docket. The court also stated that Williams had not otherwise tried to contact the court privately.
The court reminded Williams that, because Zubair had not given written consent to receive filings through the court’s electronic filing system or by other electronic means, a copy of every submission had to be properly served on him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. The court encouraged people representing themselves to consider consenting to electronic service and provided information about other filing and service options.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Zubair’s motion to strike Williams’s letters. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, and the court said it would mail Zubair a copy of the order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed the motion to strike and service of filings; the opinion does not decide the underlying dispute between Zubair and Fay Servicing.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.