Zappin v. Comfort

Background

Anthony Zappin’s case had been closed after the court adopted Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang’s report and recommendation on September 30, 2022. The recommendation advised dismissing Zappin’s Third Amended Complaint in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the domestic-relations exception to diversity jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It also recommended, alternatively, dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court also issued a pre-filing injunction requested by Defendant Cohen, barring Zappin from filing further federal actions arising from the underlying state custody action and state disciplinary and fee proceedings without prior court approval.

Zappin then filed a motion for reconsideration of the order adopting the recommendation and a motion to vacate the pre-filing injunction. The court noted that Zappin was proceeding without a lawyer but was an experienced litigant and practicing lawyer. Although the court alerted him that his motion to vacate lacked a supporting memorandum, and he requested additional time to file one, he never filed the memorandum. He stated that he would voluntarily withdraw the motion if he could not locate it, but the opinion addressed the motion on the assumption that it had not been withdrawn.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. It is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence or law, or a clear error that must be corrected to prevent serious unfairness. It is not an opportunity to present the case again under new theories.

Zappin argued that the court had erred in finding no subject-matter jurisdiction, in finding that he had not adequately pleaded his claims, and in issuing the pre-filing injunction. The court stated that it had already considered his objections concerning the domestic-relations exception, Rooker-Feldman, collateral estoppel, and his claims for abuse of process, conspiracy to abuse process, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and violations of New York Judiciary Law § 487. The court concluded that Zappin identified no overlooked controlling legal issue, crucial fact, change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error. It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.

Motion to Vacate

The court held that the motion to vacate was unsupported by the memorandum required by Local Civil Rule 7.1. To the extent Zappin had not voluntarily withdrawn the motion, the court denied it for failure to comply with that rule.

Disposition

The court denied both Zappin’s motion for reconsideration and his motion to vacate. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 190 and 192.