Zappin v. Comfort
- 1:18-cv-01693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zappin v. Comfort, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, alternatively failure to state a claim, and imposed a pre-filing injunction.
Anthony Zappin is subject to a pre-filing injunction requiring prior court approval for further actions arising from the Custody Action and the Disciplinary and Fee Proceedings, including collateral attacks on decisions in those proceedings.
What happened
In Zappin v. Comfort, the court adopted recommendations concerning Anthony Zappin’s third amended complaint. It dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court did not further address the alternative recommendation based on collateral estoppel.
The court also adopted the recommendation to issue a pre-filing injunction. The injunction prevents Zappin from filing further actions arising from the Custody Action and the Disciplinary and Fee Proceedings, including actions that indirectly challenge decisions in those proceedings, unless he first obtains court approval.
The court found no clear error in the recommendation after reviewing Zappin’s objection, which argued generally that the injunction was unconstitutional but did not address the factors used to evaluate such an injunction. The court, whose presiding judge is not identified in the opinion text, closed the case.
The detailed version
- Zappin v. Comfort · No. 1:18-cv-01693
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns Anthony Zappin’s third amended complaint, referred to as the TAC. The court’s ruling followed its adoption of a report and recommendation. The opinion text does not describe the underlying claims or provide further factual background about the Custody Action or the Disciplinary and Fee Proceedings.
Rulings
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court also stated that, in the alternative, the TAC was dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately alleges a legally viable claim. The court said it did not address that recommendation further because it had already adopted the recommendation to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court also adopted the recommendation to issue a pre-filing injunction. A pre-filing injunction requires a litigant to obtain court approval before filing specified future actions. The injunction prevents Zappin from filing further actions flowing from the Custody Action and the Disciplinary and Fee Proceedings, including actions that collaterally attack decisions rendered in those proceedings, without prior court approval.
Reasoning and Disposition
Zappin objected to the proposed injunction by arguing generally that it would be unconstitutional. The court noted that his objection did not address the factors used to determine whether a pre-filing injunction should issue and found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court issued the pre-filing injunction, and the case was closed. The opinion text does not identify the presiding judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.