Glickstein v. Johnson

Background

Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer, sued Abigail Johnson and Fidelity Investments. He alleged that Fidelity froze G Asset Management’s account in 2014, preventing what he described as highly profitable investments and causing lost compensation and profits. He sought $82 billion in damages. The complaint invoked diversity jurisdiction.

The court had previously allowed Glickstein to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the complaint was filed under that procedure, the court was required to dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.

Diversity and Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court concluded that the complaint did not establish a viable basis for diversity jurisdiction. Although Glickstein alleged that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was in controversy, the facts alleged did not suggest any viable state-law claim or show that he was entitled to relief under state law.

The court also found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Glickstein did not invoke that jurisdiction, and the complaint did not allege facts suggesting a claim under the Constitution or federal law.

G Asset Management’s Claims

The court separately ruled that G Asset Management could not appear without an attorney. An artificial entity such as an association or investment firm cannot represent itself in federal court. Because Glickstein was not alleged to be an attorney, the court dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court granted Glickstein 60 days to replead. An amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim, include addresses for named defendants, and plead facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that if Glickstein did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period and did not show good cause, it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the clerk to terminate the matter.