Battistotti v. 3095 Owners Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-06976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Battistotti v. 3095 Owners Corp., Judge Caproni ordered defendants to support federal jurisdiction or explain why the case should be sent back.
Marco Battistotti and defendants 3095 Owners Corp., ABC Realty, and Ralph Davis. The defendants must either provide more facts supporting federal jurisdiction or explain why the case should be remanded.
What happened
In Battistotti v. 3095 Owners Corp., Marco Battistotti, representing himself, sued 3095 Owners Corp., ABC Realty, and Ralph Davis in New York state court. He later amended his complaint to add claims under federal civil-rights laws based on alleged assaults, harm, harassment, retaliation, stalking, unlawful imprisonment, and discrimination.
The defendants moved the case to federal court, claiming that the complaint raised federal questions. Judge Caproni noted that the complaint and removal papers did not say the defendants were government actors, as generally required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also found that the complaint did not adequately describe the property rights or racial discrimination involved in its claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
Judge Caproni ordered the defendants to act by September 5, 2025. They must either file an amended notice of removal with enough facts to show federal jurisdiction or explain why the case should be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Battistotti v. 3095 Owners Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-06976
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Marco Battistotti, proceeding without a lawyer, originally filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, in May 2023, against 3095 Owners Corp., ABC Realty, and Ralph Davis. On July 24, 2025, he filed an amended complaint alleging that, between March 15, 2021, and March 15, 2024, the defendants caused him to be physically assaulted, psychologically harmed, harassed, retaliated against, stalked, unlawfully imprisoned, and discriminated against inside and outside the building at 30 East 95th Street, New York, New York.
The amended complaint asserts twelve causes of action. Five claims, added for the first time in the amended complaint, allege violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983. The defendants removed the case to federal court on August 22, 2025, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on alleged constitutional and federal statutory violations.
Jurisdictional issues
The court explained that the defendants had the burden of showing that removal was proper and that federal courts may consider subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear a case—even without a party asking them to do so.
The court stated that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may be brought only against governmental actors. Neither the notice of removal nor the amended complaint indicated that 3095 Owners Corp., ABC Realty, or Ralph Davis were government actors.
The court also explained that 42 U.S.C. § 1982 permits claims against private individuals and organizations for intentional racial discrimination that deprives a person of rights involving property, such as the right to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, or convey real or personal property. The court found that the amended complaint focused on assaults allegedly committed by a non-party and reported to the defendants. It did not describe what property rights were violated or provide a basis for racial discrimination beyond a bare allegation that the deprivation occurred because of Battistotti’s race. The complaint instead stated that he was discriminated against because he was not a cooperative shareholder and because he spoke out about allegedly unacceptable living conditions.
Order
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that, no later than Friday, September 5, 2025, the defendants must either file an amended notice of removal containing adequate factual allegations to show that the federal court may exercise jurisdiction or show cause—provide an explanation—why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not itself finally remand the case or decide the merits of Battistotti’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.