Goodman v. Bouzy

Background

Jason Goodman, who represented himself, sued Christopher Ellis Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, Inc., George Webb Sweigert, David George Sweigert, Benjamin Wittes, Nina Jankowicz, Adam Sharp, Margaret Esquenet, The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Seth Berlin, and Maxwell Mishkin. Goodman alleged fraud, defamation, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Goodman moved for default judgment, sanctions, a preliminary injunction, and permission to amend the complaint again. Jankowicz and Wittes moved for sanctions against Goodman. The matters were referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, who issued a report and recommendation recommending that the dismissal motions be granted, Goodman’s requests to amend and for a preliminary injunction be denied, Goodman’s sanctions motion be denied, Jankowicz and Wittes’s sanctions motion be granted, a filing injunction be issued against Goodman, and the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Review of the objections

Goodman objected to the report’s descriptions of his allegations concerning Wittes and Bouzy. The court concluded that one description of Goodman’s allegation about Wittes was inaccurate, but that the wording did not affect whether Goodman had stated legally sufficient claims. The court also agreed with the report’s interpretation of Bouzy’s allegedly defamatory statement and found no clear error in the report’s treatment of the relevant phone call.

Goodman also relied on information he said was newly discovered. The court found that the information was unrelated to whether he had stated claims and declined to consider an argument concerning an email exchange that had been publicly available for several years. The court found no clear error in the remainder of the report.

Defendants Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, and Berlin objected to the recommendation denying their request for attorney’s fees and costs related to Goodman’s sanctions motion. The court concluded that Goodman’s later statements did not show what he understood when he filed that motion and held that the filing injunction was a sufficient remedy at that time.

Rulings

The court overruled the parties’ objections and adopted the report and recommendation. It entered these dispositions:

- Goodman’s motion for default judgment against Bouzy and Bot Sentinel was DENIED. - Goodman’s motion for sanctions against Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, and Berlin was DENIED. - Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees connected to that motion was DENIED. - Goodman’s motion for a preliminary injunction was DENIED. - Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, Berlin, and Mishkin’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. - Sweigert’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. - Jankowicz and Wittes’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. - Esquenet, Sharp, and ATAS’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED. - Goodman’s motion for leave to amend was DENIED. - Jankowicz and Wittes’s motion for sanctions was GRANTED.

The court enjoined Goodman from filing additional docket documents relating to Wittes or Jankowicz in the Southern District of New York, filing a federal district court action against either of them concerning this case’s subject matter, or filing a new self-represented action against either of them in any federal district court without first obtaining that court’s permission. Their request for attorney’s fees was DENIED.

The complaint was DISMISSED with prejudice as to all Defendants, and the clerk was directed to close the case and correct the spelling of Bot Sentinel, Inc.’s name in the caption.