Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A.

Background

Alexander Moskovits, proceeding without a lawyer and having paid the filing fee, sued Bank of America N.A., private attorneys and law-firm defendants, Calvin Grigsby, Roger Bernstein, Justice Barry Ostrager, and unidentified defendants. He invoked federal-question, diversity, Alien Tort Statute, civil-rights, and international-law theories.

The lawsuit arose from an earlier New York state-court case involving alleged compensation for a financial structure and transactions involving Grigsby and Bank of America. The state court dismissed Moskovits’s claims against Grigsby and Bank of America on the merits and dismissed claims against two other individuals without prejudice. Moskovits then filed this federal action, challenging the state judge’s sealing and dismissal orders and alleging that other defendants aided the judge’s alleged misconduct.

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

The court held that Moskovits’s claims challenging the state-court proceeding were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from reviewing a final state-court judgment. The court found that Moskovits had lost in state court, claimed injuries caused by the state-court judgment, asked the federal court to review and reject that judgment, and filed the federal case after the state judgment. The court also stated that alleging fraud does not create an exception to the doctrine in this Circuit. It noted that Moskovits had already pursued an appeal in the New York state courts, which was the proper process for seeking review of the state-court orders.

Civil-Rights Claims

The court considered the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the extent they were not barred by Rooker-Feldman. Section 1983 provides a remedy when a person acting under state authority violates a federal constitutional or statutory right.

The court dismissed Moskovits’s damages claims against Justice Ostrager on judicial-immunity grounds. Judges are generally immune from damages claims based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities, even when the plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court found that the challenged sealing, dismissal, and possible recusal decisions were judicial acts and that Moskovits had not alleged that Ostrager acted outside his judicial role or without jurisdiction. The court also stated that Moskovits had not alleged facts showing that a declaratory decree was violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable, as required for the relevant request for injunctive relief under § 1983.

Moskovits did not provide specific facts identifying or describing the alleged “Court Administration” defendants. The court explained that court employees performing functions closely connected to judicial proceedings may have immunity comparable to judicial immunity. It also noted that damages claims under § 1983 against the New York State Court Administration, if that was the intended defendant, would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The court held that Moskovits had not stated a § 1983 claim against Grigsby, Bernstein, Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Berger, LLP, Beth Kaufman, or Silvia Larizza because the complaint identified them as private actors who did not work for a state or other government body. The court dismissed the § 1983 and § 1985(3) conspiracy claims because they were vague and unsupported and did not allege facts showing a constitutional violation or discriminatory conduct.

Alien Tort Statute and International-Law Claims

The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under the Alien Tort Statute or Article 10 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Alien Tort Statute requires a claim involving a tort committed in violation of a treaty or a sufficiently specific rule of customary international law. The court concluded that Moskovits’s allegations did not meet that standard. It also stated that the Universal Declaration generally does not create enforceable international-law obligations or a private right of action in federal court, and that the underlying state case was civil rather than criminal.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court stated that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the plaintiff and defendants and a reasonable probability that more than $75,000 is in controversy. Even assuming those requirements were met, the court found it unclear what tort claims remained after its earlier analysis.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court granted Moskovits leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to comply with the order, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include the case number. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Moskovits and stated that no answer was required at that time. If Moskovits failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.