Azzarmi v. Neubauer

Background

Aasir Azzarmi brought the action without a lawyer against Donald Neubauer, CoventBridge Group (USA), Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Sedgwick SIU, Inc., QBE North America Operations, and Does 1–10. He asserted claims for defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligence per se, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with a contractual relationship, inducing breach of contract, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and violating California’s Unfair Competition Law.

On September 20, 2022, the court dismissed the action with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 41, based on Azzarmi’s failure to comply with Rule 15 and the court’s Individual Rules. Azzarmi moved for reconsideration on September 30, 2022, and requested permission to file a Third Amended Complaint.

Standard for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. A party seeking it must identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a way to repeat arguments already decided or present material that could previously have been submitted.

Rule 41(b) Dismissal

Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute an action or comply with court rules or an order. The court must consider the length of the failure, notice that dismissal could result, likely prejudice to defendants, the court’s interest in managing its docket, the plaintiff’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a less severe sanction would be appropriate. The court emphasized that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is a harsh remedy, should be used only in extreme situations, and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court also noted that courts should be especially cautious about dismissing a case for procedural problems when the plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer.

The court found that it had not warned Azzarmi that failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could result in dismissal with prejudice and had not expressly considered a lesser sanction. It therefore withdrew its dismissal with prejudice and granted Azzarmi leave to amend so that he could bring the complaint into compliance with Rule 8.

Rule 8 Deficiencies

The court rejected Azzarmi’s argument that his Second Amended Complaint complied with Rule 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that the Second Amended Complaint, together with its exhibits, was 531 pages long and lacked organization and a narrative structure. It described the pleading as redundant, argumentative, excessively long, and difficult to understand, and concluded that it failed to give the defendants fair notice of the claims. The court held that dismissal under Rule 8 was warranted.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Azzarmi’s motion for reconsideration. It reopened the case and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. If Azzarmi wished to proceed, he had to file a Third Amended Complaint complying with Rule 8 within 30 days of the opinion. That complaint had to completely replace the Second Amended Complaint and include all claims, defendants, and factual allegations he wanted the court to consider. The court warned that failure to correct the Rule 8 problems could result in dismissal without prejudice, while failure to file a timely Third Amended Complaint could result in dismissal with prejudice. The court scheduled a status conference for October 10, 2023.