Simpson-Quin v. 19 India Fee Owner, LLC

Background

Lucien Simpson-Quin alleged that Alyssa Montejano made false statements about him to police, his employer JP Morgan Chase & Co., and 19 India Fee Owner LLC, which owned the apartment where Simpson-Quin and Montejano had lived. He alleged that the police statements led to his arrest, that communications with JP Morgan led to his suspension and termination, and that Montejano persuaded building management to change the apartment’s locks. He also alleged that he could not promptly retrieve his belongings and that Montejano and others stole, destroyed, or discarded much of his property.

Simpson-Quin asserted defamation and tortious-interference claims against Montejano and an unlawful-ejectment claim against 19 India. Montejano moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). 19 India moved under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and alternatively 12(d). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns federal subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Claims Against Montejano

The court granted Montejano’s motion and dismissed all claims against her.

For the statements to police, the court treated September 10, 2022, as the date of the allegedly defamatory statements. New York’s one-year deadline for defamation claims therefore expired on September 10, 2023. Because Simpson-Quin filed this action on September 14, 2023, the court dismissed that defamation claim as time-barred.

The court also dismissed the defamation claims based on alleged statements to JP Morgan and 19 India. Simpson-Quin did not identify what Montejano allegedly said, when she said it, or to whom she said it. The court ruled that his plan to use discovery to learn the statements did not satisfy the requirement to state a plausible claim before obtaining discovery.

The court dismissed the tortious-interference claim because it was duplicative of the defamation claims. Simpson-Quin alleged that Montejano’s statements caused JP Morgan to investigate and terminate him, but the court found that the alleged economic injury flowed from the claimed reputational harm rather than from an independent injury.

The court denied leave to amend. It found that amendment would be futile for the police-related defamation claim because it was time-barred and for the tortious-interference claim because that claim failed as a matter of law. It also denied another opportunity to amend the claims involving statements to JP Morgan and 19 India because Simpson-Quin had already had multiple opportunities to plead those claims and had not supplied the required details.

Claim Against 19 India

The court granted 19 India’s motion to dismiss. Although Simpson-Quin called his claim “unlawful ejectment,” the court explained that ejectment generally requires ownership of the real property. Because Simpson-Quin alleged that he was a tenant rather than the apartment’s owner, the court construed the claim as one for unlawful or wrongful eviction.

The court concluded that the alleged denial of access was not unlawful during the period covered by the temporary restraining order. Simpson-Quin was legally barred from entering the apartment after his release from custody because the order protected Montejano, who lived there. The court also concluded that Simpson-Quin was not a legal tenant under the operative lease because his name was not on it. On those grounds, the court held that changing the locks or restricting his access did not constitute an unlawful eviction by 19 India.

The court separately held that Simpson-Quin’s claim did not satisfy the more-than-$75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. It excluded the value of his belongings and the jointly leased car from the damages attributable to 19 India, finding that the complaint did not connect those losses to 19 India’s conduct. The court stated that, at most, Simpson-Quin alleged $29,456.86 in substitute-housing damages, which was below the jurisdictional threshold, and dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court denied further leave to amend against 19 India, finding amendment futile because Simpson-Quin had repeatedly failed to plead a viable claim or damages exceeding $75,000.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted Montejano’s motion to dismiss and granted 19 India’s motion to dismiss. The court denied Simpson-Quin leave to amend again. The court also ordered Montejano to notify the court within seven days whether she wished to pursue her counterclaims after the dismissal of Simpson-Quin’s claims against her.