No v. Bank of America

Background

Jeong-Suk No, appearing without a lawyer, sued Bank of America and invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, on March 6, 2020.

Using the court’s general complaint form, No stated that he was a citizen of the Republic of Korea and was applying for dual citizenship of Korea and the United States. He provided a New York, New York address but did not identify his domicile or provide additional information about his United States citizenship status, including whether he was a lawful permanent resident.

For Bank of America, No alleged only that it was incorporated and had its principal place of business in the United States. He did not identify the specific state or states involved. He also did not allege that he sought more than $75,000 or provide facts suggesting that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

No’s listed allegations included failure to return financial services and personal checks, failure to provide bank statements, replacement of a stolen credit card, breach of contract, negligence, being forced to apply for a Bank of America credit card, personal-data protection issues, and refusal to correct allegedly false bank-file information after reports of identity theft, a data breach, and stolen incidents. He sought an investigation, restitution, compensation, and personal-data protection.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states, or the case to fit the statute’s rules concerning state and foreign citizens, and requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court concluded that No had not alleged enough facts to establish either the parties’ citizenship or the required amount.

The court also applied the pleading standard for complaints filed without a lawyer. Although such pleadings must be read generously, they still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court found that No’s complaint contained too little background information about what occurred or how Bank of America allegedly violated his rights. The court stated that the complaint did not provide facts from which it could reasonably infer that Bank of America was liable.

Leave to amend and other rulings

The court granted No leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days because he might be able to allege facts supporting viable claims and federal jurisdiction. The court directed him to state whether he was a lawful permanent resident and, if so, his domicile; identify the state or states where Bank of America was incorporated and had its principal place of business; allege facts supporting damages of $75,000 or more; and provide facts supporting each claim.

The court also directed the amended complaint to identify relevant people and defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain the alleged violations and injuries, and state the requested relief. The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The opinion states that No had filed more than a dozen additional documents, many labeled as affidavits or evidence, and that virtually all were illegible. The court denied the requests in those documents and directed No to include the allegations and requested relief in the amended complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate all other pending matters.

The order did not dismiss the current complaint at that time. It stated that if No failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, and could not show good cause for the failure, the court would dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.