Miah v. Morgan Stanley and Co. International PLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-03582
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Miah v. Morgan Stanley, Judge Ricardo ordered citizenship evidence and briefing before deciding jurisdiction or other motions.
Habib Miah, the self-represented plaintiff, and the defendants were required to submit briefing and evidence concerning the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not yet decide any party’s motion.
What happened
In Habib Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, including for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff, who was representing himself, filed opposition papers, and defendants moved to strike them.
The court said the parties had given too little attention to whether federal jurisdiction exists. It ordered both sides to file letter briefs and evidence addressing each party’s citizenship and whether complete diversity exists, with filings due May 30, 2025.
Judge Ricardo did not decide the motion to dismiss or the motion to strike in this order. He stated that the court intended to decide subject-matter jurisdiction before addressing other motions and warned that the complaint could be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to show jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Miah v. Morgan Stanley and Co. International PLC · No. 1:25-cv-03582
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 20, 2025
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Before Plaintiff’s deadline to respond had expired, Defendants filed a reply. Plaintiff later filed two papers opposing dismissal, and Defendants moved to strike those filings. The order identifies Plaintiff as representing himself.
Jurisdictional Issue
The court described subject-matter jurisdiction as a threshold issue that must be addressed before the court takes further action. It explained that the party asserting jurisdiction—in this case, Plaintiff—bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. The court also noted that, when deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, it may consider evidence outside the pleadings.
Order
The court directed both parties to submit supplemental letter briefs of no more than five single-spaced pages addressing whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The parties must analyze each party’s citizenship and whether complete diversity of citizenship exists under the governing law. They must also provide evidence of each party’s citizenship, by sworn declaration or another method. The filings were due May 30, 2025.
The court did not rule on the motion to dismiss or the motion to strike. It stated that it intended to resolve subject-matter jurisdiction before acting on any other motions or requests and warned that the complaint could be dismissed if Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing jurisdiction. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Plaintiff.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.