"Plaintiff's Answer to the Complaint or the Appropriate Motion [Must] Be Written in English"

From Judge Paul Maloney's opinion Friday in Al Qassimi Academy v. Abuhaltam (W.D. Mich.) [UPDATE: note that some of the references to "Plaintiff" presumably mean "Defendant"]:

Plaintiff is an educational institution serving the Muslim Arabic community in Israel. Defendant resides in Okemos, Michigan. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant has defamed and slandered Plaintiff in various social media outlets….

Plaintiff is currently not represented by an attorney, he is "pro se." This Court must liberally construe the pleadings and other filings of pro se parties. The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that this rule does not relieve a pro se litigant of the obligation to follow a court's procedural rules ….

Plaintiff asks the Court "for extina of time AT least I need Tow moth to Print All Decoumnt releted to this case witch in the sosha sotial media it is over than 175 thousend pages…" Plaintiff's "motion" exceeds 380 pages. Most of the pages are printouts from various websites. And, most of the pages are in Arabic. Approximately 30 pages are handwritten in English. The Court infers that English is not Defendant's first language….

The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 7). Defendant MUST file his answer to the complaint (a responsive pleading) or an appropriate motion no later than May 18, 2023. The Court urges Defendant to review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the Western District of Michigan, both of which can be accessed through this Court's website. Generally, a defendant does not need to present any extrinsic evidence (such as print outs from social media) in order to answer a complaint. The Court also directs Defendant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b), which limits exhibits and attachments to a motion to 200 pages per party.

In an exercise of discretion, the Court requires Plaintiff's answer to the complaint or the appropriate motion to be written in English. The Court is unaware of any statute or rule that requires pleadings and motions be written in English. The Court cannot read Arabic. Defendant's submissions indicate he can understand English and has a limited ability to communicate in English….

Defendant submitted another 94 pages for his motion to dismiss. Again, most of the pages are written in Arabic and most of the pages are print outs or copies of documents. About four of the pages are handwritten in English. Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the case "becuse I have Alut of witeness over sees and the other Party use the Low to Attack the Other Pebule they have Alat of mony and All How show there coraption sutt ther mouth by using the mony wich steel it from the Poor People by the Name of God and whin hey Do ther Crime they Do it with expert to Cover ther coraption and the have Alut of layer witenesess." The Court does not know the content of any of the pages in Arabic.

The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because the Court does not read Arabic, the Court cannot discern the content of most of Defendant's submissions. Defendant may refile his motion to dismiss in English….

More on the case, which I wrote about in March:

Plaintiff is an academic institution located in Israel. The Israeli government has issued a license to the Academy. The Academy provides educational and religious services to the Muslim Arabic community in Israel….

Plaintiff complains that Defendant [who is in Michigan] uses his Facebook account and other social media platforms to make false, defamatory, and slanderous statements about the Academy and individuals associated with it. Plaintiff pleads that Defendant uses fighting words and incites violence against Plaintiff's Board members, staff and their families.

Defendant accuses Plaintiff and those associated with Plaintiff of being agents and proxies of Israel. Plaintiff denies being an agent or proxy of the Israeli government. Plaintiff alleges that extremist groups frequently target and threaten members of the Muslim Arabic community in Israel who are seen as agents of or working too closely with the Israeli government.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant refers to individuals associated with the Academy as pigs and uses porcine imagery to insult those individuals. Plaintiff pleads that many Muslims consider pigs to be vile, filthy animals and being compared to a pig is equivalent to being accused of being a disbeliever or a heathen. Plaintiff filed a declaration from a board member in which the board members states that "[a]ll the claims and publications made by the Defendants against us are false." …

Our United States Supreme Court cautions that temporary restraining orders are extraordinary and drastic remedies that may be issued only under "stringent restrictions" and their limited availability "reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute." … Under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 65, a court may issue a temporary restraining order, without notice to the adverse party, only if two conditions are met. First, the moving party must establish specific facts through an affidavit or a verified complaint showing that an immediate and irreparable injury will result to the moving party before the adverse party can be heard in opposition to the motion. Second, the counsel for the moving party must certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. In addition, the court must consider each of four factors: (1) whether the moving party demonstrates a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party would suffer irreparable injury without the order; (3) whether the order would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the order.

Plaintiff has not met the requirements in Rule 65(b) for a temporary restraining order. The declaration filed with the complaint does not identify an irreparable injury that will occur before the adverse party can be heard in opposition. The declaration only denies the truth of Defendant's statements. And, counsel has not certified in writing any efforts to give notice to Defendant about this matter or provided reasons why notice should not be required.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Engrish?? why not Uke-Rane? or (His)-Spanish? or Pig Latin?

[Peter Gerdes]

This guy sounds like the kind of frothing at the mouth anti-Israel extremist that gets produced by the propaganda in Arab countries. So no doubt he's saying some pretty awful things that don't have much value. Having said that, I’m disturbed that it seems like the institute is about to use his lack of sophistication and crazed views about this issue to take away his free speech rights.

I mean fighting words? That doctrine doesn’t even make sense in this context. He isn’t in physical proximity. There isn’t any factual content involved in calling the plaintiffs pigs. Surely they must realize this and are hoping to either scare him into backing down or count on him losing on some kind of procedural concern. And they wouldn’t mention the pig example if they had better ones.

[ReaderY]

The institution’s main claim seems to be that the blogger is libeling them by claiming they are agents of the Israeli government. He’s also calling them pigs. That may indeed not be fighting words, at least from the point of view of an American law courts. But it might be libelous. It’s pretty understandable that to an Israeli supporter a claim someone is an Israeli agent can’t be libel. But it might be libelous from the point of view of the community the institution needs to maintain a reputation is. And the law of linel is more or less politically neutral. So the institution might be able to establish both that it is false and that it damages their reputation in their community, damaging their professional stature and ability to make a living.

Taking politics out of it, looking at things strictly neutrally and in legal terms, they might have a claim.

Since the blogger is located in Michigan, the plaintiffs would seem on solid ground by going to where the defendant is and suing in federal court in Michigan. Indeed doing so seems very inconvenient for them.

While the fighting words doctrine seems to be conceived in more or less absolute terms, from the point of view of a (now more or less mythical) generic American ordinary person, libel law is more relative. Defamation is considered with respect, not to some conception of general American society, but to the plaintiff’s specific community and profession.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just another day on the lesbian-drag queen-Muslim-transgender beat at a white, male blog . . .

[Kleppe]

You're assuming they're Muslims because... they're speaking Arabic? But yes, the right-wingers are the bigots. Lol, lmao

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why would I consider this part of the Volokh Conspiracy's fixation on Muslims? For starters, it's in the first line of the decision Prof. Volokh found "interesting:"'

Plaintiff is an educational institution serving the Muslim Arabic community

Other than that, though, great comment!

[Kleppe]

Non-theists work in religious institutions all the time, and they routinely file lawsuits against their employers. But you already knew all this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How would that “point” influence whether this decision was flagged by a prescheduled, daily search for cases involving “Muslim?”

[John F. Carr]

48 USC 864: "All pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language."

In the other District Courts Congress did not see a need to require English. Everybody knows English is the language of government.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, I was going to ask about this because back in the '80s the Federal Court in PR -- whatever it was/is -- was writing opinions in Spanish and my immediate thought was what on earth the first circuit was gonna do if anyone appealed.

Could this be in response to that?

[DRM]

Could this be in response to that?

The first relevant statute (the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, in section 34), already explicitly provided that "All pleadings and proceedings in [the district court of the United States for Porto Rico] shall be conducted in the English language."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Plaintiff is currently not represented by an attorney, he is "pro se."

I thought that only natural persons could be pro se -- here it's a corporation or something. I *think*....

[ReaderY]

A judge can issue reasonable orders for the management of the case. I suspect an order that proceedings occur in a language the judge can understand would be considered reasonable.

[Bill Poser]

As a practical matter it does seem that documents addressed to a court should be written in a language that the court understands, but in the absence of any official language in the United States, what is the legal basis for a court restricting itself to English?

[Kleppe]

The court plainly said it was "unaware of any statute or rule that requires pleadings and motions be written in English" and that its instruction was an exercise in discretion. Not sure why you're asking for an authority when it has been explicitly disclaimed.

[Bill Poser]

But what makes the court think that it has such discretion? Courts can't do just anything. Even their discretionary powers arise from some source. Suppose that the court were to decide that it would only accept pleadings in Latin, which would seem to be equally within its discretion.

[KenveeB]

Courts have an inherent authority to reasonably regulate the practice of the court, and there are a variety of federal and state statutes that confirm that. (I know my state's, but I'm not sure of the exact one that may be relevant here.) Saying "The court only understands English, so please submit your filing in English" seems well within that discretion.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Something is seems very wrong with this decision (and it is the decision, not something the EV introduced)

Plaintiff asks the Court “for extina of time AT least I need Tow moth to Print All Decoumnt releted to this case witch in the sosha sotial media it is over than 175 thousend pages…” (ECF No. 7 PageID.79). Plaintiff’s “motion” exceeds 380 pages. Most of the pages are printouts from various websites. And, most of the pages are in Arabic. Approximately 30 pages are handwritten in English. The Court infers that English is not Defendant’s first language. Plaintiff did not file any response and the time to do so has passed.

The court seems to have mixed up the plaintiff and the defendant here.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; that confused me too. Perhaps English isn't the judge's first language.

[santamonica811]

heh

[tkamenick]

It's all over the place in that excerpt, I have no idea what's going on.

[MatthewSlyfield]

It's not just the excerpt. I looked at the actual decision PDF that's linked.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only thing that mattered was the use of the term “Muslim.”

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is where I blame the ABA.

Over the past 50 years, and largely coming out of what saved lives in Vietnam, we've developed the concept of emergency medicine and paramedics. None of this would exist had the AMA taken the hard core attitude toward the unlicensed practice of medicine that the ABA has toward the unlicensed practice of law.

A century ago, when lawyers were paid less, both sides would have been represented by counsel who would have tried to present a more coherent case to the court. Now I suspect there is no small amount of mental illness here, possibly on both sides, but does one really need a law degree to help someone translate from Arabic to English?

[David Nieporent]

1) The ABA has nothing to do with it; UPL is a matter of state law, not the ABA.
2) No, one does not really need a law degree to help someone translate from Arabic to English. Why on earth do you think that question has anything to do with this case?

[Dr. Ed 2]

1) The ABA has nothing to do with it; UPL is a matter of state law, not the ABA.

Wrong. (a) At the turn of the last century, the ABA explicitly sought to restrict entry into the legal profession so as to increase lawyer’s pay. (b) Most of the state definitions of UPL were drafted by the ABA — note how they are all pretty much the same? And (c) it was the ABA that got states to require graduation from an ABA-approved law school….

2) No, one does not really need a law degree to help someone translate from Arabic to English. Why on earth do you think that question has anything to do with this case?

Because I am, amongst other things, a grammar janitor — someone who helps people clean up their grammar and usage.

Now are you honestly claiming that helping someone draft a court pleading would not be considered UPL? Even if it were merely to help the individual express what he is trying to express?

Remember that languages often do not translate literally or conceptually. So if I suggest language for the pleading that I think expresses (in English) what I think he is trying to say in Arabic, that’s not UPL?!?

--- if so, I have a new side hustle -- Dr. Ed's Court Pleading Service -- tell me why you want to sue that MoFo and I'll clean up your language and put it all in a nice little document that you can then take to the court. Not UPL???

[David Nieporent]

Wrong. (a) At the turn of the last century, the ABA explicitly sought to restrict entry into the legal profession so as to increase lawyer’s pay. (b) Most of the state definitions of UPL were drafted by the ABA — note how they are all pretty much the same?

No, I don't. And neither do you.

And (c) it was the ABA that got states to require graduation from an ABA-approved law school….

Not all states do, and lobbying is not legislating.

Now are you honestly claiming that helping someone draft a court pleading would not be considered UPL? Even if it were merely to help the individual express what he is trying to express?

I am honestly claiming that neither proofreading nor translating is the provision of legal services.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

proofreading is [not] the provision of legal services

Was that disparagement of Bob from Ohio necessary?

[Scribe]

Some years ago, I worked on a patent-related matter proceeding before an administrative agency, the International Trade Commission. The ALJ handling our matter had a hard and fast "local rule": If a document was not in English, in his/her courtroom neither the document nor the information in it existed.
So, one Friday evening my colleague and I got the direction to start translating a pile of documents and "source code" from the foreign language we worked in, to English. By Sunday night. For filing Monday morning. And we wound up working something like 80 hours that week, Saturday and Sunday from about 6am past midnight.

Which was nice, seeing as we were being paid by the hour.

But the requirement for all filings and proceedings to be in English is easily done through a local rule. Most state courts have provisions for certified interpreters who can translate testimony in real time. It's an extra expense, but one that has to be incurred when working with non-English language matters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Most state courts have provisions for certified interpreters who can translate testimony in real time. It’s an extra expense, but one that has to be incurred when working with non-English language matters."

Much of that comes from the criminal side where the court is required to provide a translator for defendants. In a situation where an illegal alien from Ecuador dragged an American motorist 1/4 mile to his death, it wasn't good enough to merely get a Spanish translator -- no, the Commonwealth had to get a translator for the esoteric Indian language the perp spoke -- even though Spanish is the language of Ecuador and he'd been in the US for some time.

https://meaww.com/matthew-denice-23-year-old-killed-by-a-man-driving-illegally-immigrant-us-milford-massachusetts

[David Nieporent]

Yes, it wasn't good enough to get a translator for a language that wasn't the defendant's native language; they had to get a translator for the language he actually spoke. What a surprise.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe Pete Booty-Judge would do a better job if he started speaking his native Finnish.