Zanghi v. Ritella
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:19-cv-05830
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zanghi v. Ritella, Judge Buchwald dismissed any arguably remaining claim against Callegari for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after federal jurisdictional bases were unavailable.
Stefano Callegari and the plaintiffs' claim or claims arguably remaining against him.
What happened
In Zanghi v. Ritella, the plaintiffs asserted federal jurisdiction under federal securities law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Defendant Stefano Callegari was not named in the securities claims, so the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim was the only stated federal basis for jurisdiction over him.
The court had previously dismissed that Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim with prejudice. It also had transferred all claims concerning the Sforno transaction to Italy after analyzing whether another forum was more appropriate. The only possible basis for jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against Callegari was supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain related state-law claims.
The court decided that exercising supplemental jurisdiction was not warranted and dismissed any claim arguably remaining against Callegari for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued the order on January 7, 2022.
The detailed version
- Zanghi v. Ritella · No. 1:19-cv-05830
- Naomi Buchwald
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC asserted two bases for federal subject-matter jurisdiction in their First Amended Complaint: federal securities law under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Stefano Callegari was not named in the securities-law counts, Counts I and II. Thus, RICO was the only asserted federal basis for jurisdiction over Callegari.
The court stated that its September 24, 2021 Memorandum and Order had dismissed the RICO claim with prejudice. The court also explained that the September 24 decision transferred all claims concerning the Sforno transaction to Italy after applying a forum non conveniens analysis, which considers whether another court is a more appropriate place to resolve the dispute.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The court stated that a plaintiff must establish federal jurisdiction for each claim asserted. It further explained that supplemental jurisdiction was the sole possible basis for jurisdiction over the only state-law claim asserted against Callegari. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear certain related state-law claims.
The court determined that exercising supplemental jurisdiction was not warranted. The opinion therefore did not decide the merits of the state-law claim.
Disposition
The court ordered that any claim arguably remaining in the case against Callegari was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald signed the order on January 7, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.