Azzarmi v. Neubauer

Background

Aasir Azzarmi brought the action without a lawyer against Donald Neubauer, CoventBridge Group (USA), Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Sedgwick SIU, QBE North America Operations, and unidentified defendants. He alleged claims for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with a contractual relationship, inducing breach of contract, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and violation of California’s unfair-competition law.

Azzarmi first filed the case in November 2020. He later filed an amended complaint and then filed a second amended complaint in August 2021. The second amended complaint added Sedgwick CMS, Sedgwick SIU, and QBE, removed DN Private Consulting, and added claims. Azzarmi filed the second amended complaint without the court’s permission and without the consent of CoventBridge and Neubauer, even though he had requested permission and those defendants had not consented.

Defendants’ Motions and Rule 8 Ruling

CoventBridge and Neubauer, Sedgwick, and QBE each filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short, plain, simple, concise, and direct statement giving defendants fair notice of the claims.

The court found that the second amended complaint did not satisfy Rule 8. It contained 204 pages, 1,307 paragraphs, and another 329 pages of exhibits. The court described it as lacking organization and a narrative structure, and as being redundant, argumentative, irrelevant, and difficult to understand. The court concluded that defendants could not fairly determine how the alleged facts supported the claims or which facts supported which allegations.

The court also found that Azzarmi repeatedly violated the court’s individual rules, including the 25-page limit and formatting requirements for motion papers. The court noted that Azzarmi had previously been warned about compliance with those rules in this case and in an earlier related proceeding. The court stated that representing himself did not exempt him from following procedural rules.

Rule 15 and Rule 41 Grounds

Rule 15 generally allows a party to amend a pleading without permission only in specified circumstances. Otherwise, the party must obtain the opposing parties’ written consent or the court’s permission. The court found that Azzarmi’s filing of the second amended complaint violated this requirement.

The court explained that failure to follow the Federal Rules can support dismissal under Rule 41, which allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the rules. The court determined that Azzarmi’s unauthorized filing and repeated violations of the court’s rules supported dismissal under Rule 41 as well as Rule 8.

Merits Discussion

The court included a footnote stating that it was not relying on the merits of the claims for its ruling but believed defendants’ merits arguments were strong. It said New York law likely applied, that several tort claims appeared duplicative of the defamation claim, and that most claims appeared time-barred. It also identified alleged deficiencies involving QBE’s role, the specific defamatory statements and damages, the connection between the investigation and Azzarmi’s termination, and the California-law claims. The court stated that, if it reached the merits, the claims would likely be dismissed with prejudice. These observations were not the stated basis for the order.

Disposition

Judge Karas dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 41 because of Azzarmi’s failure to comply with Rule 15 and the court’s individual rules. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.