No v. Salvation Army

Background

Jeong-Suk No appeared without a lawyer and invoked the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. No used the court’s general complaint form and alleged that Salvation Army/Markle Residence was involved in an eviction, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, refusal to accept rent, failure to provide or return basic services, and related events. The opinion states that the complaint was not clear enough to determine the precise claims.

No stated that he was a citizen of the Republic of Korea and was applying for dual citizenship in Korea and the United States. He gave himself a New York, New York address but did not identify his domicile or provide further information about his American citizenship status. He alleged that Salvation Army/Markle Residence was incorporated and had its principal place of business “in the State of USA,” without identifying particular states. He also did not allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only cases authorized by federal law. For diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the plaintiff must allege that the parties are citizens of different states or, in certain circumstances, that a state citizen is suing a citizen or subject of a foreign state. The plaintiff must also allege a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is in controversy.

The court held that No had not alleged enough facts to establish either requirement. It directed him to state whether he is a lawful permanent resident and, if so, the state in which he is domiciled. It also directed him to identify the states in which the defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business. The court further required facts showing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court warned that diversity jurisdiction would not exist if No is a lawful permanent resident domiciled in New York and the defendant is incorporated or has its principal place of business in New York.

Required Amended Complaint

The court directed No to put all allegations he wants the court to consider into one amended complaint. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant and must include addresses for the defendants. To the greatest extent possible, it must identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated No’s federally protected rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief he seeks.

The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than add to it. The court also directed No to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-11282 (CM). No summons would issue at that time.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon granted No leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the stated requirements. The court did not decide whether the allegations were legally valid on their merits. The order states that if No fails to comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause for the failure, the court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.