Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00040
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Zaerpour v. Bank of America, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint, allowed amendment within 30 days, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Soheil Zaerpour and the more than 20 banks and financial entities named as defendants. The ruling also limits Zaerpour, while representing himself, to pursuing his own claims rather than claims for other people.
What happened
In Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation, Soheil Zaerpour, representing himself, sued more than 20 banks and financial entities. He alleged that they manipulated foreign-exchange and benchmark prices and violated criminal laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, civil-rights and securities laws, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He also tried to bring claims for the people of the United States.
The court ruled that Zaerpour could not represent other people because he was not an attorney. It also found that his complaint did not provide the short, factual explanation required by the federal pleading rules. In particular, he could not incorporate his entire earlier complaint, especially because this case named additional defendants. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Zaerpour 30 days to file an amended complaint containing more facts and limited to his own claims. She denied his request for free legal counsel without prejudice, meaning he may renew it later, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-00040
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 8, 2023
Background
Soheil Zaerpour, who represented himself, sued Bank of America Corporation and more than 20 banks and financial entities. The complaint purported to assert claims for Zaerpour and for “the people of the United States of America.” Zaerpour alleged that defendant banks coordinated to manipulate foreign-exchange prices and benchmark prices against him and the people of the United States. He cited criminal laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, unspecified civil-rights and securities laws, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He sought monetary and punitive damages.
Zaerpour attempted to incorporate the allegations from an earlier related proceeding. In that earlier round, defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, including improper service, lack of standing, insufficient allegations of conspiracy, and other issues. The earlier court dismissed that action for improper service without reaching the merits. Zaerpour then filed this action against the same defendants and additional defendants.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a self-represented person may appear only for himself and may not bring a class action or otherwise represent other people. Because Zaerpour was the only person who signed the complaint, the court treated the action as asserting claims only on his behalf. If he amended the complaint while still representing himself, he could bring only his own claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found Zaerpour’s allegations insufficient because he could not simply incorporate the entirety of his earlier complaint, particularly when the new complaint named defendants who were not addressed in that earlier pleading. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Leave to amend and counsel
The court granted Zaerpour 30 days to amend because he was representing himself and the court determined that he should have an opportunity to provide more facts. The amended complaint must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Zaerpour wants considered must be repeated in the new filing.
Zaerpour also moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The court denied that motion without prejudice because it was too early to assess the merits of the action. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. No summons would issue at that time.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.