Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC

Background

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on May 2, 2025, asserting several grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff Habib Miah filed an opposition, and defendants filed a reply. Miah later made two additional filings opposing dismissal, and defendants moved to strike those filings.

Jurisdiction issue

The court explained that subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute—is a threshold issue that must be addressed before the court takes other action. The court stated that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. It also noted that, when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a district court may consider evidence outside the complaint.

The court specifically directed the parties to address the citizenship of every party and whether complete diversity of citizenship exists under the governing law. The parties must submit supplemental letter briefs of no more than five single-spaced pages, along with evidence of citizenship by sworn declaration or another method. Both sides’ submissions are due May 30, 2025.

Ruling and effect

The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of the case. Instead, Judge Henry J. Ricardo directed supplemental briefing and evidence on subject-matter jurisdiction and stated that the court intends to resolve that issue before considering other motions or requests. The order reminded Miah that the complaint can be dismissed if he fails to establish jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Miah, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.