Gershowitz v. Griv
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-01915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Gershowitz v. Griv: Judge Engelmayer dismissed the case without prejudice because foreign citizens on both sides defeated diversity jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs—Schneur Gershowitz, Chana Liba Nachimovsky, and Racquel Even-Sapir—and defendant Daniel Griv were affected. The case was dismissed without prejudice and closed because the court found no diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In Gershowitz v. Griv, three plaintiffs sued Daniel Griv over allegedly false statements about them, bringing claims for libel, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Griv represented himself and argued that the federal court lacked authority to hear the case.
The court found that the lawsuit relied only on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete citizenship differences between the opposing sides. The plaintiffs included citizens of New Jersey and Israel, while the court credited Griv’s sworn statement that he was a citizen of Israel. Because citizens of Israel were on both sides, the court found that diversity jurisdiction did not exist.
Judge Engelmayer adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted Griv’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to close the case and denied as moot requests by the plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw and pause the case.
The detailed version
- Gershowitz v. Griv · No. 1:24-cv-01915
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 31, 2025
Background
Schneur Gershowitz, Chana Liba Nachimovsky, and Racquel Even-Sapir sued Daniel Griv, also known by two other names listed in the caption. The complaint asserted claims for libel, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements Griv allegedly published about the plaintiffs and events involving Nachimovsky’s divorce. Griv was proceeding without a lawyer.
The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Gershowitz was identified as a citizen and resident of New Jersey. Nachimovsky and Even-Sapir were identified as citizens and residents of Israel. Although the plaintiffs alleged that Griv was a citizen of New York, Griv submitted a sworn affidavit stating that he was a citizen of Israel. The court credited that sworn statement. The court noted that Griv’s current residence was disputed but was not relevant to the motion.
Procedural History and Standard
Griv moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide the dispute. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting the motion because foreign citizens were present on both sides. No party objected to the recommendation.
Because there were no objections, Judge Engelmayer reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. The court adopted the recommendation in full. In deciding the jurisdictional motion, the court could consider evidence outside the complaint, including Griv’s affidavit.
Ruling
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. The plaintiffs had the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction existed, but the record showed Israeli citizens on both sides of the dispute: Nachimovsky and Even-Sapir among the plaintiffs, and Griv as the defendant. The presence of Gershowitz, a New Jersey citizen, did not cure the lack of complete diversity because foreign citizens remained on both sides.
The court therefore granted Griv’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the case, and denied as moot the plaintiffs’ counsel’s requests to withdraw and stay the case.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.