Glickstein v. Lesser

Background

Michael Glickstein, appearing without a lawyer and proceeding without prepaying filing fees, sued David Lesser and Millennium Investment & Acquisition Company, Inc. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and described his injury as the loss of compensation from intellectual property. The complaint alleged that, during events in New York in 2015, Glickstein presented an investment opportunity involving a micro-cap shell company and that Lesser later purchased approximately 17% of the company, allegedly cutting Glickstein out of the deal. The complaint stated that Glickstein and G Asset Management sought $3 million and various forms of compensation.

The court described the complaint as confusing and apparently incomplete. It noted that Glickstein alleged that he was a New York resident, that Lesser was also a New York resident, and that Millennium Investment & Acquisition Company, Inc. was incorporated under New York law.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship—that is, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court concluded that complete diversity was lacking because Glickstein and Lesser were both alleged to be from New York, and the company was alleged to be incorporated in New York. The court therefore held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction.

The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction, which applies when a claim arises under the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Glickstein had not invoked that jurisdiction and had not alleged facts suggesting a federal claim. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

G Asset Management’s Claims

The court separately dismissed G Asset Management’s claims without prejudice. It explained that an association or other artificial entity cannot appear in federal court without an attorney. It also stated that a person proceeding without a lawyer cannot represent another party. Because Glickstein did not assert that he was an attorney, he could not litigate claims on G Asset Management’s behalf.

Leave to Replead

Although the court was doubtful that the defects could be cured, it granted Glickstein 30 days to file an amended complaint because the original complaint appeared incomplete. The amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify what each defendant allegedly did, provide addresses for the defendants, and plead facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), while granting Glickstein 30 days’ leave to replead. The court instructed the Clerk to hold the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. If Glickstein did not timely file an amended complaint or show good cause for the failure, the court would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the Clerk to terminate the matter.