Ditto v. Ditto

Background

Frank Ditto, representing himself, sued his sister, Catherine Ditto, also representing herself. He alleged that, after their mother, Mary Ditto, died, Catherine accessed emails in Mary’s email account concerning whether Mary had given her home to Frank. The opinion describes the action as involving alleged interference with an agreement between Frank and Mary.

A magistrate judge directed Frank to amend his complaint after noting that it had no apparent basis for venue in the Southern District of New York. Catherine moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and after Frank filed an amended complaint, she updated that motion. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses later recommended dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), or alternatively for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Review of the Recommendation

The parties had 14 days to object to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The report warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No objection or request for more time was filed.

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Rearden reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court concluded that the recommendation was well reasoned and that the record showed no clear error. The opinion states that Frank waived the right to judicial review by failing to object after receiving the warning.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The court’s ruling did not decide whether Frank’s underlying allegations about the emails or the alleged agreement were legally correct.