Glickstein v. Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-04930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Glickstein v. Pfeffer, Judge Stanton dismissed Glickstein’s fee-waived lawsuit as frivolous.
Michael Glickstein’s lawsuit against Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group was dismissed as frivolous, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint. The court warned that future frivolous filings could lead to a prior-permission requirement.
What happened
Michael Glickstein sued Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group, claiming they owed him money for using information from a real-estate investment document. He sought $50 million and proceeded without paying filing fees.
The court found that the complaint contained only vague and unsupported statements and did not provide facts showing that Glickstein was entitled to money. The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow him to amend it.
In Glickstein v. Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group, Judge Louis L. Stanton also warned that additional frivolous lawsuits could lead to a requirement that Glickstein obtain court permission before filing new cases in that court.
The detailed version
- Glickstein v. Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group · No. 1:20-cv-04930
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 24, 2020
Background
Michael Glickstein, representing himself, sued Gideon Pfeffer and GSH Group under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that the defendants owed him a substantial amount of money connected to their review of G Asset Management’s private-placement memorandum concerning a real-estate opportunity. He sought $50 million in damages for himself and his company, G Asset Management.
The court had previously allowed Glickstein to proceed without paying filing fees. His complaint contained two incomplete factual statements, including allegations that Pfeffer and GSH Group took profitable actions after reviewing the memorandum without compensating him or his firm.
Court’s analysis
When a person proceeds without paying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires the court to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is otherwise subject to the statute’s dismissal requirements. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still must have an arguable legal or factual basis.
The court concluded that Glickstein’s allegations were vague and conclusory. Although he alleged that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was at issue, he did not allege facts showing that he was entitled to relief. The court held that the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and dismissed it as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton declined to grant Glickstein leave to amend because the court determined that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The order states that the complaint was dismissed as frivolous and that all other pending matters were terminated. The court also warned that further vexatious or frivolous filings could result in an order barring Glickstein from filing new actions in that court without prior permission.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.