Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00040
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation, Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Soheil Zaerpour’s amended complaint was dismissed, and he was not allowed another amendment. The named defendants were not required to proceed against the claims in this action. Permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation, Soheil Zaerpour sued numerous defendants, including banks and financial companies, claiming violations of securities laws, antitrust laws, and computer-crime laws. He sought to recover $50,000, interest for 20 years, and punitive damages.
Zaerpour alleged that a banking conspiracy had targeted him since 2002 and that his foreign-exchange trades had predicted movements of the entire foreign-exchange market. He had already amended his complaint after the court identified problems with his original filing.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that these allegations were wholly incredible and lacked a factual basis or legal theory supporting a civil claim. She dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous, declined to allow another amendment, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Zaerpour v. Bank of America Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-00040
- Laura Swain
- May 3, 2023
Background
Soheil Zaerpour brought the action against numerous defendants, including Bank of America Corporation, other banking and financial companies, and The People of the United States of America. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted claims involving securities laws, antitrust laws, and computer crimes. He sought $50,000 in lost principal, 20 years of interest, and punitive damages.
Zaerpour alleged that he had been the target of a criminal conspiracy by a banking cartel since 2002. He asserted that, between 2002 and 2006, his live foreign-exchange trades became predictive of movements in the entire foreign-exchange market. He maintained that his trading-account statements proved the conspiracy and alleged that the Department of Justice had not acted to identify or arrest the people involved.
The court had previously directed Zaerpour to amend his original complaint to address identified deficiencies. He filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2023, and the court reviewed it.
Court’s Analysis
A court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or when it is frivolous, even if the plaintiff paid the filing fee. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law. The court also may dismiss for failure to state a claim after giving the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond, while reading filings from a person without a lawyer liberally.
The court concluded that the allegations that Zaerpour’s trading activity predicted the movements of the entire foreign-exchange market because of a banking-cartel conspiracy were wholly incredible. It found no factual basis or legal theory on which he could rely to state a viable civil claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed Zaerpour’s amended complaint as frivolous. It declined to grant another opportunity to amend because Zaerpour had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and the amended complaint gave no indication that its defects could be cured. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judgment was ordered to enter.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.