Glickstein v. Klein

Background

Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer, sued Daniel Klein and Klein Enterprise under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that Klein failed to compensate him for an investment-related real estate deal and thereby stole unspecified intellectual property. Glickstein sought $131 million for lost compensation. The complaint also asserted claims on behalf of G Asset Management.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states and a claimed amount exceeding $75,000. Although Glickstein alleged those requirements, the court found that his statements that defendants had “wronged” him by failing to compensate him were too vague to identify a viable state-law claim or show that he was entitled to relief.

The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction. Glickstein did not invoke that basis of jurisdiction, and the complaint contained no facts suggesting a claim created by federal law or requiring resolution of a substantial federal-law question.

The court separately ruled that G Asset Management could not appear without a lawyer because it is an artificial entity. Because Glickstein did not claim to be an attorney, the court dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court declined to give Glickstein permission to amend because it concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment.