Azzarmi v. Catania
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-04712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Azzarmi v. Catania, Judge Karas denied Aasirr Azzarmi’s motion to reconsider the dismissal and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
Aasirr Azzarmi, the self-represented plaintiff, was affected by the denial of reconsideration and continued dismissal of the case; Chris Catania and the other defendants were affected because the dismissal remained in place.
What happened
In Azzarmi v. Catania, Aasirr Azzarmi, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider an earlier dismissal based on venue and failure to comply with court orders. He also asked for jurisdictional discovery, permission to amend his complaint, and transfer of the case.
Azzarmi argued that venue was proper in New York, that Chris Catania’s location when the case began was disputed, and that the court had used the wrong legal standards. He also argued that the court should have transferred the case rather than dismissing it and that he had not received adequate warning before sanctions and dismissal.
Judge Kenneth Karas denied the motion for reconsideration for the same reasons supporting the earlier dismissal. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Azzarmi v. Catania · No. 7:20-cv-04712
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 8, 2022
Background
Aasirr Azzarmi, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 to reconsider an earlier order dismissing his case. The motion also sought jurisdictional discovery, leave to amend the complaint, and transfer of the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). The motion challenged the earlier dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Azzarmi argued that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because the alleged defamatory publications reached New York residents and affected his work there. He also argued that the record did not establish where Chris Catania was domiciled when the complaint was filed, that the defendants had waived any venue objection, and that the court should have considered transfer instead of dismissal. He further challenged sanctions and dismissal based on his use of the word “hateful,” asserting that he lacked adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The Court’s Ruling
The court denied Azzarmi’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion’s concluding text states that the motion was denied for the same reasons supporting the earlier dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and Rule 41(b)’s failure-to-comply provision. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion. The text provided does not describe a separate ruling granting jurisdictional discovery, leave to amend, or transfer.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.