Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market

Background

Azzarmi asked the court to rule, separately from any other pending motion or dispute, that California law applied to her defamation claim. She argued that California law should govern because she was then domiciled in California.

The alleged defamation occurred in New York. Azzarmi alleged that, on October 20, 2019, store manager Angel Parma accused her of being a known shoplifter in front of customers and employees at a New York grocery store. She also alleged that she was later barred from entering the store in New York on May 15, 2020. The opinion states that Parma, the other customers and employees, and Azzarmi were New York residents at the relevant times, while also stating that Azzarmi was presently domiciled in California.

The amended complaint relied on New York law. Azzarmi also relied on New York defamation law when opposing the defendants’ earlier motions to dismiss. Applying New York law, the magistrate judge recommended, and the district judge agreed, that Azzarmi had stated defamation claims against Parma and 55 Fulton Market.

Reasons for the ruling

The court called the motion frivolous and gave three reasons for denying it.

First, the court applied judicial estoppel, a doctrine that generally prevents a party from taking a position in one stage of a case and then taking an inconsistent position later after succeeding with the first position. Because Azzarmi had relied on New York law to defeat parts of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court ruled that she could not abandon that position later simply because her interests had changed.

Second, the court stated that Azzarmi had not shown any relevant difference between California and New York defamation law. Under New York choice-of-law rules, a court generally first asks whether the laws of the relevant jurisdictions actually conflict. Without a demonstrated conflict, the court stated that no choice-of-law analysis was required.

Third, the court held that New York law applied under New York’s choice-of-law rules because New York had the most significant interest in the dispute. The alleged statements and later injury occurred in New York, and the alleged statements came from a New York grocery store involving people identified as New York residents.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses denied Azzarmi’s motion. The opinion did not rule that the defamation claims themselves succeeded or failed; it ruled that California law would not replace New York law for those claims.