JABBARI v. AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (2026)

Order

[1] Appellant is appealing the trial court's July 27, 2026 order. In that order, the trial court noted it had warned Appellant that his groundless and repetitive motions could result in sanctions. Despite the warning, the court found Appellant's repetitive filings continued and were “indicative of a pattern of abusive litigation.” The court sanctioned Appellant by dismissing his claims.

[2] Appellant initiated this appeal and continued making repetitive filings. On September 11, 2026, the Court's motions panel denied Appellee's Request for Dismissal of Appeal but warned Appellant that continued excessive and repetitive filings may result in the imposition of filing restrictions.

[3] Appellant has not heeded the Court's warning. Appellant continues to file numerous repetitive and defective documents. Appellant has tendered a defective brief ten (10) times – twice on October 11, twice on October 13, five times on October 14, and once on October 16. Appellant tendered a defective appendix eight (8) times – once on October 7, once on October 13, five times on October 14, and once on October 16. These defective documents must all be reviewed and processed by the Clerk of this Court. Appellant's flood of defective filings over such a short period of time placed a significant burden on the Clerk's resources and manpower. Ultimately, these filings were unnecessary. The Clerk filed Appellant's Appendix on October 13, and his brief was filed on October 14.

[4] Along the way, Appellant has also tendered and filed several motions. Two motions remain outstanding – a Motion for Accommodation on Appeal and a Verified Motion for Limited Deviation from Appellate Rule 35(A), Leave to File Appellant's Brief Belatedly, and Request to Defer Dismissal.

[5] The Court finds that Appellant is a prolific, abusive litigant whose numerous filings have been a drain on judicial resources. “Every resource that courts devote to an abusive litigant is a resource denied to other legitimate cases with good-faith litigants.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 264 (Ind. 2014). As such, “[t]here is no right to engage in abusive litigation, and the state has a legitimate interest in the preservation of valuable judicial and administrative resources.” Id. Courts have the inherent authority to impose reasonable restrictions on any abusive litigant including instructing “the clerk to reject without return for correction future filings that do not strictly comply with applicable rules of procedure and conditions ordered by the court.” Id. at 269.

[6] Having reviewed the matter, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Appellant's Motion for Accommodation on Appeal and Verified Motion for Limited Deviation from Appellate Rule 35(A), Leave to File Appellant's Brief Belatedly, and Request to Defer Dismissal are denied.

2. Pursuant to Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014), after consideration of Appellant's litigation history, the Court concludes filing restrictions should be imposed on Appellant.

3. Accordingly, the Court imposes the following conditions upon Appellant:

a. Any Notice of Appeal filed by Appellant must fully comply with the content requirements of Appellate Rule 9(F) and Form #App.R. 9-1. If it does not, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

b. At the time Appellant tenders a Notice of Appeal, Appellant must either pay the appellate filing fee as required by Appellate Rule 9(E) or comply with Appellate Rule 40 by showing Appellant has been granted permission by the trial court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. If Appellant does not pay the appellate filing fee or comply with Appellate Rule 40, then the Clerk is directed to return the Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

c. Any documents/motions tendered by Appellant in a case after the Notice of Appeal has been filed must fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If the tendered document/motion does not fully comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, then the Clerk is directed to return the noncompliant document/motion to Appellant without it being docketed.

d. Appellant must include a copy of this order with all documents, motions, and Notices of Appeal tendered with the Clerk of this Court. If Appellant does not do so, then the Clerk is directed to return the document, motion, or Notice of Appeal to Appellant without it being docketed.

4. These conditions apply in this case, any currently pending appeal, any past appeals initiated by Appellant, and any future appeals initiated by Appellant.

5. The Court directs that this order should be published.

6. The Clerk is directed to send this order to West/Thompson Reuters, LexisNexis, and all other sources to which decisions/opinions of this Court are normally sent.

7. The Clerk is directed to send this order to the parties, the trial court, and the Hamilton Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk.

8. The Hamilton Circuit and Superior Courts Clerk is directed to file this order under Cause Number 29D01-2601-PL-150, and, pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 77(D), the Clerk shall place the contents of this order in the Record of Judgments and Orders.