Johnson v. Norinsberg
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Johnson v. Norinsberg, Judge Stanton dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, allowing 30 days to replead.
Robert W. Johnson’s case against Jon Norinsberg, Ilissa Brownstein, Brownstein Legal, P.C., French & Casey, and Toni Colucci was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but Johnson was given 30 days to replead.
What happened
Johnson v. Norinsberg concerned Robert W. Johnson’s claims against lawyers, two New York law firms, and a paralegal involved in his representation at a state-court hearing. Johnson alleged civil-rights violations, bribery, false attorney representation, denial of wrongdoings, and abuse of authority, and sought ownership of the defendants’ assets and accounts.
The court found that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction because the claims did not arise under federal law or a constitutional right. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because Johnson sued New York law firms, and the complaint therefore did not show that all parties were citizens of different states.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and granted Johnson 30 days’ leave to replead facts supporting jurisdiction under the diversity statute.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Norinsberg · No. 1:20-cv-03303
- Louis Stanton
- May 21, 2020
Background
Robert W. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued Jon Norinsberg, Ilissa Brownstein, Brownstein Legal, P.C., French & Casey, and Toni Colucci. The defendants included lawyers, two New York law firms, and a paralegal. The lawsuit concerned the defendants’ involvement in Johnson’s representation at an April 13, 2020 hearing under New York General Municipal Law § 50-h, arising from his December 2019 arrest.
Johnson alleged that he retained Brownstein on March 13, 2020, but that the agreement was terminated before the hearing. He asserted claims described as “civil rights violations, bribery, false attorney representation, denial of wrongdoings & abuse of authority.” He sought “100% ownership” of the defendants’ assets, deeds, and monetary accounts.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction when a complaint raises a federal question or when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is at stake.
The court rejected federal-question jurisdiction because Johnson’s claims did not arise under federal law or a constitutional right. Merely invoking federal jurisdiction was not enough to establish jurisdiction.
The court also rejected diversity jurisdiction. Johnson sued two New York law firms, and the court stated that their citizenship precluded complete diversity. The complaint also did not provide addresses for the individual defendants. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it was required to dismiss the action.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Johnson 30 days’ leave to replead facts suggesting that jurisdiction exists under the diversity statute. The court stated that it was unclear whether allowing repleading would be futile. The opinion did not decide the underlying allegations against the defendants.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.