Goodman v. Bouzy, 1:21-cv-10878

Background

Plaintiff pro se Jason Goodman sued multiple defendants (including Christopher Bouzy/Bot Sentinel, George Webb Sweigert, David Sweigert, Benjamin Wittes, Nina Jankowicz, and others) alleging fraud, defamation, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and RICO-type claims.
Earlier, Judge Cott issued a First R&R dismissing Webb for lack of personal jurisdiction and granting Goodman leave to amend; Goodman filed an amended complaint.
Numerous defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 8, 9, and 12(b)(6); motions for sanctions and for a preliminary injunction were also filed; a certificate of default against Bouzy/Bot Sentinel was vacated.
Judge Cott’s Second R&R recommended dismissal of the amended complaint in full, denial of further leave to amend, denial of Goodman’s sanctions motion, grant of certain defendants’ sanctions motions, entry of a filing injunction against Goodman as to Wittes and Jankowicz, and dismissal with prejudice.
Goodman objected (challenging factual characterizations and asserting newly discovered materials); defendants sought attorney’s fees in light of later statements by Goodman.
The district court overruled objections, adopted the Second R&R, denied Goodman’s motions for default judgment and sanctions, granted all defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied leave to amend, granted sanctions and a limited filing injunction against Goodman (as to Wittes and Jankowicz), and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of claims (12(b)(6))	Goodman contends his amended complaint pleads facts supporting fraud, defamation, abuse of process, conspiracy, and RICO claims.	Defendants argue the allegations are conclusory, fail to state actionable defamatory or RICO conduct, and do not meet Rule 9(b) where applicable.	Court adopted R&R: claims dismissed for failure to state a claim; dismissal with prejudice.
Leave to amend	Goodman sought leave to amend again, citing new allegations/evidence.	Defendants opposed further amendment as futile and untimely.	Court denied leave to amend; new material was unrelated or previously available.
Sanctions (Rule 11 and other motions)	Goodman moved for sanctions against some defendants.	Defendants sought sanctions and attorneys’ fees, arguing Goodman’s claims were frivolous and post-R&R statements show intent to harass.	Court denied Goodman’s sanction motions; denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees but granted Jankowicz/Wittes’ sanctions and entered a limited filing injunction against Goodman.
Filing injunction/scope	Goodman opposed any litigation restriction.	Defendants sought broader sanctions and fees based on continued conduct.	Court enjoined Goodman from filing further district-court filings relating to Wittes or Jankowicz without leave; declined to award fees.
Preliminary injunction vs. Sweigert	Goodman sought an injunction against Sweigert.	Sweigert moved to dismiss and opposed injunctive relief.	Court denied Goodman’s preliminary injunction motion.
Default judgment against Bouzy/Bot Sentinel	Goodman moved for default judgment based on earlier default entry.	Defendants had default vacated and opposed default judgment.	Court denied Goodman’s motion for default judgment; certificate of default was vacated.

Key Cases Cited

Ebomwonyi v. Sea Shipping Line, 473 F. Supp. 3d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (accept factual allegations as true and draw inferences for 12(b)(6) review)
United States v. Gladden, 394 F. Supp. 3d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (district court will not consider new arguments on objections that could have been raised before the magistrate)
Morley v. Ciba–Geigy Corp., 66 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for frivolousness under Rule 11)
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (definition of clear-error standard on review)
Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 669 F. Supp. 2d 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (discussing review for clear error of portions of magistrate judge reports)