Zappin v. Schorr
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-02034
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Zappin v. Schorr, Judge Ramos denied Zappin’s motions to reconsider dismissal, amend the complaint, and obtain discovery.
Anthony Zappin’s requests for reconsideration, amendment, and discovery were denied. The order also continued a filing restriction affecting Zappin’s ability to bring specified new actions in the Southern District of New York without court permission.
What happened
In Zappin v. Schorr, Anthony Zappin, a disbarred attorney representing himself, sued New York State officials and David Evan Schorr, an attorney who had previously represented him during parts of his divorce proceedings. The court had dismissed the action in March 2023.
Zappin asked the court to reconsider that dismissal, let him file a second amended complaint, and allow limited discovery. The court said he was trying to revisit issues it had already decided and that the proposed amendment and discovery would serve no useful purpose.
Judge Ramos denied the motion in full. The court also repeated a restriction barring Zappin from filing certain new actions in the Southern District of New York without the court’s permission, including actions arising from his divorce, disciplinary proceedings, arrest, or prosecution.
The detailed version
- Zappin v. Schorr · No. 1:22-cv-02034
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 2, 2023
Background
Anthony Zappin, a disbarred attorney proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against New York State officials and David Evan Schorr, a privately practicing attorney who had represented Zappin during portions of his divorce proceedings. The court had dismissed the action in a March 2023 opinion and order.
Motions and legal standards
Zappin asked the court to reconsider the March 2023 dismissal, permit him to file a second amended complaint, and allow limited discovery. The court explained that reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 is an extraordinary remedy available only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, manifest injustice, or overlooked controlling law or facts. It also explained that permission to amend may be denied for reasons including undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, or futility, meaning the proposed amendment would not advance a viable case.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Zappin had not met the standard for reconsideration. It said he was attempting to relitigate old issues, present new theories, and obtain another opportunity to argue the case. The court further concluded that amending the complaint and obtaining discovery would be futile, for the reasons stated in the record and in related cases arising from Zappin’s divorce and custody action.
Disposition
The court denied Zappin’s motion to reconsider the dismissal, file a second amended complaint, and seek limited discovery. The order does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice. The court also reiterated that Zappin is enjoined—that is, barred by court order—from filing without permission any new action in the Southern District of New York against Justice Cooper, New York State, New York State entities or agencies, or current or former New York State judges, officials, or employees when the action arises from his divorce proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, encounter with Justice Cooper, or corresponding arrest and prosecution. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.