MCMILLAN v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In McMillan v. American Express, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction but allowed amendment within 30 days.
Adriane L. McMillan’s claims against American Express and The Bank of New York Mellon were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but she was given 30 days to amend her complaint.
What happened
In MCMILLAN v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Adriane L. McMillan, representing herself, sued American Express and The Bank of New York Mellon over a denied credit-card application and alleged problems involving securities. She cited federal securities laws and sought damages and several orders concerning a credit card and securities.
The court said McMillan had not provided enough facts to establish either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. It found her references to federal securities laws too conclusory and her allegations supporting the amount of damages too speculative, although it assumed for purposes of the order that the parties were citizens of different states.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted McMillan 30 days to file an amended complaint showing why the court has jurisdiction. The court also denied her permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- MCMILLAN v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY · No. 1:24-cv-05685
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 10, 2024
Background
Adriane L. McMillan appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. She sued American Express and The Bank of New York Mellon. She alleged that American Express rejected her application for an American Express Platinum Credit Card and engaged in conduct involving securitized assets and securities. She alleged that The Bank of New York Mellon failed to carry out an order concerning a security entitlement and converted her property interest.
McMillan identified Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as federal bases for her claims. She also referred to Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, insider trading, securities fraud, conversion, and alleged misstatements and omissions. She sought $50 million in damages and various forms of injunctive relief, including orders involving a credit card, securities records, securitized assets, payment flows, and a CUSIP number.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court examined federal-question jurisdiction, which generally covers claims arising under the Constitution or federal law, and diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete citizenship diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
As to federal-question jurisdiction, the court concluded that McMillan’s allegations were conclusory and did not plead facts showing that her claims arose under federal law. The court understood the claims to appear related to the denied credit-card application, The Bank of New York Mellon’s alleged failure to execute an order concerning a security, and the alleged seizure of securities. Simply citing federal statutes and regulations was not enough to establish jurisdiction.
As to diversity jurisdiction, the court assumed for purposes of the order that the parties were citizens of different states. It nevertheless concluded that McMillan had not alleged facts showing that her state-law claims were worth more than $75,000. The court described the claimed value of those claims, including the requested $50 million in damages and other relief, as speculative and conclusory.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted McMillan 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction and/or diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that if she did not timely amend, the Clerk would be directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action and declining to consider any state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.