Glickstein v. Bulsara
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03897
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Glickstein v. Bulsara, Judge Stanton dismissed the action for no federal jurisdiction and no valid claim, and dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice.
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 was not represented by an attorney. Ankur Bulsara and Scopely, Inc. were the defendants.
What happened
In Glickstein v. Bulsara, Michael Glickstein, representing himself, sued Ankur Bulsara and Scopely, Inc. He said he offered investment advice by email, that the defendants used it in financing transactions, and that he deserved $120 million in compensation even though there was no contract.
The court found that these allegations did not support a valid state-law claim and that Glickstein had not stated any federal-law claim. It also ruled that G Asset Management could not participate without a lawyer because it is an artificial entity.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. He dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice and declined to allow Glickstein to amend the complaint because the defects could not be fixed by amendment.
The detailed version
- Glickstein v. Bulsara · No. 1:20-cv-03897
- Louis Stanton
- Aug. 6, 2020
Background
Michael Glickstein, appearing pro se, sued Ankur Bulsara and Scopely, Inc. under the court’s asserted diversity jurisdiction. Glickstein alleged that he sent Bulsara an email offering investment strategies, that Bulsara and Scopely acted on his advice in financing transactions, and that he was entitled to compensation based on an alleged industry custom. He acknowledged that there was no contract and sought $120 million in damages. Glickstein also named G Asset Management as a plaintiff.
The opinion states that Glickstein is a New York resident and that Bulsara and Scopely are California residents. Glickstein had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees under the federal statute governing actions brought by people who cannot pay those fees.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Claims
The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires citizenship in different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Although Glickstein alleged an amount above that threshold and different state residences, the court concluded that his allegations did not give rise to a viable state-law claim or suggest that he was entitled to relief under state law.
The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction. Glickstein did not invoke that basis of jurisdiction, and the complaint alleged no facts suggesting a claim created by federal law or requiring resolution of a substantial federal question.
G Asset Management’s Claims
The court held that G Asset Management, an artificial entity, could not appear in federal court without an attorney. Because Glickstein did not assert that he was an attorney, the court dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to grant Glickstein leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton 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 review of complaints filed without prepayment of fees. The order separately states that G Asset Management was dismissed as a party and does not assign a prejudice designation to the dismissal of the action as a whole.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.