Glickstein v. AB InBev
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Glickstein v. AB InBev, Judge Stanton dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Michael Glickstein’s action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. G Asset Management’s claims were dismissed without prejudice because it could not appear without an attorney.
What happened
In Glickstein v. AB InBev, Michael Glickstein alleged that AB InBEV and its employees used his idea for separating Chinese beer brands without paying him. He sought $3 billion for himself and G Asset Management.
The court found that complete diversity was missing because Glickstein, Carlos Brito, and Craig Katerberg were all New York residents. It also found no facts supporting a federal-law claim. G Asset Management’s claims could not proceed without a lawyer and were dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court also declined to allow Glickstein to amend the complaint because it found the defects could not be cured.
The detailed version
- Glickstein v. AB InBev · No. 1:20-cv-03845
- Louis Stanton
- June 25, 2020
Background
Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer, sued AB InBEV; Carlos Brito; Craig Katerberg; and Mabel Zhang. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and alleged that he had shared an idea about spinning off AB InBEV’s Chinese beer brands during a job interview. He claimed that the defendants later acted on the idea without compensating him. Glickstein sought $3 billion for alleged loss of compensation from intellectual-property use. G Asset Management was also listed as a plaintiff.
The court had previously allowed Glickstein to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring dismissal of an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
Diversity Jurisdiction
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. Such jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be at stake. Glickstein was alleged to be a New York resident, and Brito and Katerberg were also alleged to be New York residents. Because complete diversity was absent, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
The court also found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Although the complaint referred to intellectual property, it did not invoke federal-question jurisdiction and did not allege facts showing a claim created by federal law or dependent on a substantial federal-law issue.
G Asset Management’s Claims
The court dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice. It explained that a company or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court without an attorney. The opinion states that Glickstein did not claim to be an attorney.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to give Glickstein permission to amend the complaint because it concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and for failure to state a claim under the statute governing IFP complaints. It also stated that G Asset Management was dismissed as a party. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Glickstein and record service on the docket.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.