Moskovits v. Federal Republic of Brazil
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-04309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Moskovits v. Federal Republic of Brazil, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denied fee-free appeal status.
Alexander Moskovits and the named defendants; the complaint was dismissed without a ruling on the underlying compensation claims.
What happened
Alexander Moskovits, representing himself, sued Brazil, Brazilian states and entities, and two individuals over alleged unpaid compensation for business-related work. He asserted unjust enrichment, payment for the value of his services, and contract-related claims.
The court ruled that it lacked authority to hear the case. Because Moskovits said he was a United States citizen domiciled in Brazil, he could not establish the citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction, and his state-law claims did not present a federal question.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moskovits permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Moskovits v. Federal Republic of Brazil · No. 1:21-cv-04309
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 14, 2021
Background
Alexander Moskovits filed this pro se action, meaning he represented himself, after paying the filing fee. He sued the Federal Republic of Brazil; the State of Santa Caterina, Brazil; the State of Maranhao, Brazil; the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil; CELESC of Santa Catarina, Brazil; Raimundo Colombo; Jorge Siega; and Does 1 through 10.
Moskovits claimed that he was entitled to compensation connected to proposed financial transactions involving Brazil and Brazilian states. He asserted unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims and, alternatively, breach-of-contract or quasi-contract claims. He relied on emails from 2011 through 2013 and agreements involving financial transactions. The opinion states that related litigation had already occurred in New York state and federal courts.
Jurisdiction
The court addressed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It considered diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction.
For diversity jurisdiction, the court explained that Moskovits alleged he was a dual citizen of the United States and Brazil and was domiciled in Brazil. The court held that a United States citizen domiciled abroad is not treated as a citizen of a United States state or as a foreign citizen for purposes of the diversity statute. Therefore, his alleged citizenship and domicile deprived the court of diversity jurisdiction. The court accepted his allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded the statutory threshold.
The court also held that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction. Moskovits did not invoke federal law, and the allegations did not suggest a claim arising under the Constitution, federal statutes, or treaties. The court concluded that referring to New York law in contracts did not establish federal jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed Moskovits’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The order did not decide whether his unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, contract, or quasi-contract claims were legally valid. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Moskovits a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion is signed by Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.