Moskovits v. Bank of America N.A.

Background

Alexander Moskovits, representing himself, filed this federal action against Bank of America N.A.; Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Berger, LLP; several lawyers; Justice Barry Ostrager; Calvin Grigsby; Roger Bernstein; and other defendants. The case arose from an earlier New York state-court lawsuit involving alleged unjust enrichment and breach of contract connected to a business deal in Brazil. The state court dismissed Moskovits’s claims against Grigsby and Bank of America on the merits and dismissed claims against other defendants without prejudice to a possible action in Brazil or another appropriate forum. The status of Moskovits’s state-court appeal was unclear.

Moskovits alleged that Justice Ostrager unlawfully sealed the entire state-court record and that the other defendants helped him do so by making false statements and submitting fraudulent documents. Moskovits sought millions of dollars in damages and invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction, the Alien Tort Statute, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and Article 10 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Earlier Order and Amended Complaint

In a January 20, 2021 order, the court directed Moskovits to amend his original complaint. That order explained that the original pleading had several defects. The court said that the rule barring federal review of state-court judgments prevented review of the state-court sealing order; that some state-actor defendants were immune from suit; that the private defendants had not acted under color of state law; and that the alleged conspiracy was inadequately supported. The court also said that Moskovits had not alleged a violation of international law or a treaty under the Alien Tort Statute, that the United Nations’ Declaration did not provide a private right to sue, and that a self-represented plaintiff could not recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

Moskovits filed an amended complaint, but the court found it substantially similar to the original. More than 40 pages consisted of state-court documents. He also alleged that the defendants violated equal protection because they acted with discriminatory intent against him based on his status as a felon.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the equal-protection theory did not state a viable claim. It explained that such a claim generally requires allegations that the plaintiff belongs to a suspect or quasi-suspect class, such as a class based on race, gender, alienage, or national origin, and that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of that membership. The court found that Moskovits’s allegations—that Grigsby accused him of “devilment,” cited a criminal case involving him, and that other defendants learned of his criminal history—did not meet that standard. The court also held that the amended complaint retained the other defects identified in the January order.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and on immunity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although courts often allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend, Judge Stanton declined to grant another opportunity because he determined that the defects could not be cured by further amendment.

The court denied Moskovits’s renewed request for Judge Stanton’s recusal for the same reasons given in its earlier ruling. It denied as moot the motions seeking recusal of other judges in the district, a stay, mandamus relief, and disqualification of defense counsel. The conclusion states that all pending motions were denied, directed the clerk to terminate them, and closed the case.