Glickstein v. Pensam Capital
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-04932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Glickstein v. Pensam Capital, Judge Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 60 days to replead.
Michael Glickstein’s claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with 60 days to replead. G Asset Management’s claims were dismissed without prejudice because it could not appear without a lawyer and Glickstein could not represent it.
What happened
In Glickstein v. Pensam Capital, Michael Glickstein, representing himself, claimed that Pensam Capital and three founders took his idea for nationwide multifamily real-estate investment and financing. He sought $6 billion and also asserted claims for G Asset Management.
The court found that Glickstein had not provided enough facts to establish diversity jurisdiction or a federal-law claim. It also ruled that G Asset Management could not proceed without a lawyer and that Glickstein could not represent it himself.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice, and granted Glickstein 60 days to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Glickstein v. Pensam Capital · No. 1:20-cv-04932
- Louis Stanton
- Aug. 10, 2020
Background
Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that Michael Stein and Pensam Capital took his investment idea involving nationwide multifamily real-estate acquisitions and nonrecourse financing. The complaint also named Gavin Beekman and Joe Ackerman. Glickstein sought $6 billion for alleged lost compensation and claimed that his intellectual property, trade secret, or investment thesis had been taken. G Asset Management was also named as a plaintiff.
The court described the complaint as confusing and apparently incomplete. It noted that Glickstein alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of different states, but he did not provide facts showing a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 required for diversity jurisdiction. The court also concluded that the allegations about the investment strategy did not suggest that the defendants had violated a right belonging to Glickstein. Glickstein did not invoke federal-question jurisdiction, and the complaint did not allege facts suggesting a claim created by federal law.
Claims by G Asset Management
The court ruled that G Asset Management, an artificial entity, could not appear in federal court without a lawyer. It also ruled that Glickstein, as a self-represented litigant, could not represent another party. The court therefore dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This was a jurisdictional ruling; the court did not decide whether the defendants had actually taken Glickstein’s investment idea or otherwise violated his rights. The court granted Glickstein 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to provide facts supporting each claim, identify what each defendant allegedly did, establish federal jurisdiction, provide defendant addresses, and state the requested relief. The court stated that if Glickstein did not timely amend or show good cause, it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the clerk to terminate the matter.
Judge
The order was signed by Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.