Azzarmi v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Azzarmi v. Sedgwick, Judge Swain denied reconsideration because claim preclusion barred duplicative claims.
Aasir Azzarmi’s request to reopen or change the dismissal was denied. The defendants remained protected by the prior dismissal, and the court’s warning about possible filing restrictions remained in effect.
What happened
In Azzarmi v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., the court had dismissed Aasir Azzarmi’s complaint because claim preclusion barred claims arising from the same events as earlier cases. Azzarmi, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider that dismissal.
The court treated his filing as requests under three rules that allow a judgment to be changed or reconsidered. It found that he had not shown that the court overlooked controlling law, important facts, or circumstances justifying relief. The court also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under the final rule.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion for reconsideration under all three rules. The action remained closed, the warning about possible filing restrictions remained in effect, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Azzarmi v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05868
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 23, 2023
Background
Aasir Azzarmi filed this action without a lawyer. On February 7, 2023, the court dismissed his complaint as barred by claim preclusion—the rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims arising from the same transactions or occurrences that were or could have been brought in an earlier proceeding. The court also warned that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to an order requiring Azzarmi to obtain court permission before filing new actions in the court.
Azzarmi filed a motion for reconsideration and a supporting declaration. The court read his submissions liberally as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Court’s Analysis
Under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Azzarmi had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court concluded that the claims in this action arose from the same transactions and occurrences involved in earlier proceedings. It therefore found that the claims either had been brought or could have been brought earlier and were barred by claim preclusion. The court also found that Azzarmi had not shown that it overlooked controlling decisions or facts.
The court separately considered Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or other circumstances warranting relief. It found that none of the first five grounds applied. It also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Azzarmi had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for that provision.
Disposition
The court denied Azzarmi’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), Local Civil Rule 6.3, and Rule 60(b). The court stated that all other matters were terminated and that the action was closed. The Clerk was directed to accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court’s warning about possible future filing restrictions remained in effect. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.