Glickstein v. Nadler

Background

Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer, sued Drew Nadler, Angie Nadler, Harry Nadler, and Longford Associates. He invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and alleged “loss of compensation from intellectual property.” The complaint described interactions concerning real-estate investments and alleged that the defendants went around Glickstein and G Asset Management in connection with real-estate opportunities. Glickstein sought money damages of up to $500 million or half of certain defendants’ and Longford’s assets, as described in the complaint.

The court noted that the complaint was confusing and appeared to be incomplete. It also stated that Glickstein had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts have limited authority to hear cases. The court explained that jurisdiction generally exists when a complaint raises a federal question or when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The court concluded that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Glickstein was identified as a New York resident, and Drew Nadler, Angie Nadler, and Harry Nadler were also identified as New York residents. Because complete diversity was lacking, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction. The court further explained that, because Longford Associates is a limited liability company, its citizenship depends on the citizenship of its members, but the complaint did not identify those members or establish that Longford Associates was a citizen of a different state.

The court also found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Glickstein did not invoke that form of jurisdiction, and the complaint did not allege facts suggesting a claim created by federal law or one that depended on resolving a substantial federal issue.

Claims on Behalf of G Asset Management

The court dismissed G Asset Management’s claims because an artificial entity, such as a company or association, cannot appear in federal court without a lawyer. The court also explained that a self-represented person who is not identified as a lawyer cannot represent another person or entity. G Asset Management’s claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Leave to Replead

Although the court was doubtful that Glickstein could correct the complaint’s deficiencies, it granted him 60 days to replead because the complaint appeared to be incomplete. The amended complaint was required to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify what each defendant allegedly did, provide addresses for the defendants, and include facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint filed without prepayment of fees for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Glickstein 60 days’ leave to replead his claims. It stated that if he did not timely file an amended complaint and did not show good cause for the failure, the court would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the Clerk of Court to terminate the matter.