Goodman v. Bouzy
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-10878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Goodman v. Bouzy, Judge Torres granted two filing injunctions, denied attorney’s fees, and denied Sweigert’s injunction request.
Jason Goodman is subject to filing injunctions requiring him to obtain court permission before making future filings in the district against the ATAS Defendants or the Bouzy Defendants. The ATAS Defendants’ attorney’s-fee motion and David George Sweigert’s request for an injunction and other relief were denied.
What happened
In Goodman v. Bouzy, Jason Goodman, who represented himself, objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendations about several defendants’ requests for filing restrictions and attorney’s fees. The underlying claims included fraud, defamation, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy.
Judge Cott recommended requiring Goodman to obtain court permission before filing future suits or claims in the district against the ATAS Defendants or the Bouzy Defendants. He also recommended denying the ATAS Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and David Sweigert’s request for a filing injunction and other relief. The court found Goodman’s objections general and repetitive, and found no clear error in the recommendations. It also concluded that Sweigert’s proposed restriction was vague and unenforceable.
Judge Analisa Torres overruled the objections and adopted the recommendations in full. The court granted the ATAS Defendants’ motion and the Bouzy Defendants’ application for filing injunctions, denied the ATAS Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees, and denied Sweigert’s motion for an injunction and other relief.
The detailed version
- Goodman v. Bouzy · No. 1:21-cv-10878
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Jason Goodman, proceeding without a lawyer, 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. The amended complaint alleged fraud, defamation, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy.
The order addressed a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge James L. Cott concerning four motions. The ATAS Defendants— the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Adam Sharp, and Margaret Esquenet—asked to amend the judgment to require Goodman to obtain court permission before filing additional suits or claims against them in the district. The Bouzy Defendants—Christopher Ellis Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, Inc., Seth Berlin, and Maxwell Mishkin—requested the same relief. The ATAS Defendants also requested attorney’s fees. David George Sweigert requested a filing injunction and other relief.
Objections and Review
Goodman objected to the recommendations, but the court found his objections general, conclusory, and repetitive of arguments previously made. The court reviewed the recommendations for clear error and found none.
David George Sweigert objected to the recommendation against his request, arguing that the magistrate judge had not addressed his request for a show-cause hearing. The court concluded that, despite the motion’s title, the relief Sweigert sought was essentially a filing injunction. It also agreed that the proposed relief was vague and unenforceable, and found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s analysis.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres overruled the parties’ objections and adopted Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court entered these rulings:
- The ATAS Defendants’ motion to amend the judgment to impose a filing injunction was GRANTED. Goodman may not make future filings against those defendants in the district without first obtaining leave of court.
- The Bouzy Defendants’ application to impose the same type of filing injunction was GRANTED.
- The ATAS Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees was DENIED.
- David George Sweigert’s motion for an injunction and other relief was DENIED.
The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the four motions and enter judgment consistent with the order and the report and recommendation. The opinion did not decide the merits of Goodman’s underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.