Lewis v. Hatem

Background

Bernard Lewis, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Albert Anthony Hatem, Leon Simon, Grace Edward-Simon, Sophia L. Trott, Norma Edwards, Ury Abraham Leid, Ashley Mancini, and Statewide Abastract Corp. He alleged, among other things, that the defendants conspired to deprive him of property he allegedly owned in the Bronx. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed Lewis’s claims against Hatem, Simon, Edwards-Simon, Edwards, and Statewide. The remaining claims were based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO, and alleged mail and wire fraud connected to the claimed conspiracy.

Leid moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Lewis had failed to state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended denying the jurisdiction motion and granting the failure-to-state-a-claim motion. She separately recommended that the claims against Trott and Mancini be dismissed as frivolous. Lewis objected to both recommendations, and Leid responded to Lewis’s objections.

Court’s analysis

The court adopted the recommendations and overruled Lewis’s objections. Because Lewis’s objections largely repeated arguments he had already made, the court reviewed the relevant portions for clear error.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court denied Leid’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Leid argued that the federal case should not proceed because Lewis had a related adverse-possession case pending in New York Supreme Court. The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine did not apply because the state was not a party to either action. It also held that the state and federal cases were not parallel for purposes of the Colorado River abstention doctrine because none of the federal claims were asserted in the state case.

RICO claim against Leid

The court granted Leid’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A RICO claim requires allegations of a statutory violation, an injury to business or property, and a causal connection between the violation and the injury. A RICO violation also requires conduct involving an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The court found that Lewis’s accusation that the defendants conspired to steal his property was speculative and unsupported by facts. It also found that Lewis did not adequately explain what Leid allegedly did, did not provide facts supporting the claim that Leid conspired with Lewis’s counsel to fix the state-court case, and did not sufficiently plead either a criminal enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity.

Claims against Trott and Mancini

The court dismissed the claims against Trott and Mancini as frivolous. It stated that Mancini had signed an affidavit of service and Trott had completed a deed for property not at issue in the case. The court found that Lewis had not shown that either defendant participated in a conspiracy and concluded that the claims were baseless. The dismissal was issued on the court’s own initiative, even though Lewis had paid the filing fee.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Parker’s reports. It denied Leid’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, granted Leid’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and dismissed the claims against Trott and Mancini as frivolous. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions and the case. Judge George B. Daniels signed the memorandum decision and order on August 17, 2020.