Zaidi v. Horton et al

Filing 36

SECOND ORDER RE REQUEST TO TRANSFER AND AMEND COMPLAINT re 20 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Sayed Hasan Arzoo Zaidi. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/23/2013. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 13-01586 WHA

SYED HASAN ARZOO ZAIDI,
Plaintiff,

SECOND ORDER RE REQUEST
TO TRANSFER AND AMEND
COMPLAINT

v.
THOMAS HORTON, ET AL,
Defendant.
/

Pro se plaintiff Syed Hasan Arzoo Zaidi commenced this action against defendants

18

Thomas Horton and Clem Bason, chief executive officers of American Airlines, Inc. and

19

Hotwire, Inc., respectively. The complaint alleges that flight delays and the lack of disability

20

accommodations by American Airlines caused plaintiff’s heart condition to flare up during

21

his flight from New York to San Jose via Dallas. After the plane made an emergency landing,

22

plaintiff was rushed to an emergency room where his treatment allegedly resulted in a bill

23

exceeding ten thousand dollars (Compl. ¶ 22).

24

On May 24, Horton moved to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction under

25

Rule 12(b)(2) and Bason moved to dismiss based upon improper venue and failure to state a

26

claim. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motions in violation of Local Rule 7-3.

27

Accordingly, an order to show cause was issued requiring plaintiff to respond by June 20. No

28

response was received, so a second order to show cause was issued on June 24. Instead of filing
an opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiff (1) requested leave to amend his

1

complaint to substitute Hotwire and American Airlines as defendants instead of their respective

2

CEOs Clem Bason and Thomas Horton, and (2) requested that the action be transferred to the

3

San Jose division given plaintiff’s medical condition. On July 9, plaintiff’s motion to amend his

4

complaint was denied and motion for intradistrict transfer was held in abeyance until plaintiff

5

paid defendant Horton the costs of preparing his motion to dismiss or showed why he should not

6

reimburse Horton for the attorney’s fees. Horton incurred $8,054.50 in attorney’s fees in

7

preparing his motion to dismiss (Chou Decl. ¶ 6). Plaintiff claimed that he was unable to

8

reimburse Horton for the attorney’s fees because of his limited sources of income and assets

9

(Plaintiff First Supp. Br. at 1, Dkt. No. 30). Plaintiff was ordered on August 1 to provide
additional facts under oath regarding his finances and inconsistencies in his complaint.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff has submitted a response to the order providing information, and defendant has

12

filed a response, contending that plaintiff’s response is inconsistent and incomplete. This Court

13

finds that plaintiff has failed to show why he should not reimburse Horton for his attorney’s fees

14

because plaintiff’s responses to this Court’s queries were inconsistent, incomplete, and

15

unconvincing. Plaintiff is a medical doctor who claims to be unlicensed to practice medicine in

16

the United States, but who has “render[ed] his services” in 2010 (Plaintiff Second Supp. Br. at 1,

17

Dkt. No. 33). Plaintiff does not explain how he was able to provide medical services without a

18

license to practice in the United States. Even if plaintiff was able to provide medical services

19

without a license, plaintiff failed to explain if he has ever practiced medicine through an LLC, as

20

required by the order. On August 19, 2013, plaintiff also claimed under oath that he transferred

21

a car allegedly worth $250 to a third party on June 21, 2013 (id. Exh. 4). This contradicts

22

plaintiff’s previous statement that he owned a car worth $250 on July 22, 2013 (Plaintiff First

23

Supp. Br. at 1, Dkt. No. 30). This contradiction raises obvious questions about when and why

24

the transfer was made. Moreover, the alleged transfer of his sole asset was to a third party who

25

shares his last name (Plaintiff Second Supp. Br. Exh. 4).

26

If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint naming American Airlines as defendant,

27

he must do so by AUGUST 30, 2013, AT NOON and append proof of payment to defendant

28

Horton. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to provide proof of payment to defendant Horton
2

1

will result in dismissal of the action with no leave to amend and judgment entered for

2

defendants.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: August, 23, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3