Armstrong v. B&H Photo
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11676
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Armstrong v. B&H Photo, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because diversity and the $75,000 requirement were not shown.
Richard Armstrong’s case was dismissed, ending this action against David Eisenberg, B&H Photo, and Alan P. The court also denied Armstrong permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
What happened
Armstrong v. B&H Photo involved Richard Armstrong’s claims against David Eisenberg, B&H Photo, and Alan P. Armstrong alleged that problems with a MacBook Pro caused him not to receive email responses from business contacts. He sought $300,000 for breach of warranty and interference with a contractual relationship.
The court found that Armstrong did not provide enough information about the citizenship of Eisenberg or Alan P. to establish that all opposing parties were citizens of different states. The court also concluded that punitive damages could not be recovered for the alleged economic losses, so Armstrong could not meet the required amount for diversity jurisdiction. The court said that amending the complaint would be futile and that the allegations were frivolous.
Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of Armstrong’s claims. The court also denied Armstrong’s request to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Armstrong v. B&H Photo · No. 1:19-cv-11676
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Richard Armstrong, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued David Eisenberg, B&H Photo, and Alan P. He invoked diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Armstrong alleged that he had purchased a MacBook Pro from B&H Photo. Years later, he experienced problems involving email responses, the computer’s Simple Mail Transfer Protocol settings, and the computer’s display. He asserted claims for breach of warranty and tortious interference with a contractual relationship and sought $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The court determined that Armstrong had not established diversity jurisdiction. Armstrong alleged that he was a citizen of Ohio and that B&H Photo was a citizen of New York, but he did not allege where Eisenberg or Alan P. were domiciled. Because diversity must be complete, the missing information meant that Armstrong had not shown that the court could exercise diversity jurisdiction.
The court also concluded that amendment would be futile. It reasoned that Armstrong could not recover punitive damages for his tortious-interference theory because the alleged injuries were economic losses associated with the computer and were therefore limited to contractual remedies. The court stated that Armstrong’s available contractual remedy was breach of warranty and that, without punitive damages, he could not meet the required amount in controversy. The court further concluded that the allegations were frivolous under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees.
The court noted that Armstrong’s claims had other defects but expressly did not reach their merits because subject-matter jurisdiction was absent.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Armstrong and note service on the docket. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It did not grant leave to amend. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Armstrong permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.