Amelio v. Houri

Background

Carmine P. Amelio and Alfonso Amelio filed this action without attorneys and paid the filing fees. They sued Galia Houri and Eyal Ronen over allegations arising from the defendants’ rental of the plaintiffs’ home at 3228 Schley Avenue in the Bronx, New York. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, property damage, impersonation, mail tampering, unauthorized access to an internet account, harassment, and negligence. The plaintiffs sought unspecified relief.

The plaintiffs invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They alleged that they resided “in both New York, NY and New Milford, CT,” and that the defendants were residents of New York.

Jurisdictional requirements

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship: no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. For an individual, citizenship generally depends on domicile—the person’s fixed home and intended permanent home—not merely residence. Diversity jurisdiction also requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court found the plaintiffs’ citizenship allegations unclear. It noted that Carmine P. Amelio had provided only a New York address in a prior related proceeding, while the current complaint alleged residence in both New York and Connecticut. The court also found that the complaint did not allege enough facts to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint listed $800 in plumbing costs, $1,516.17 in unpaid rent, and an unspecified amount for property damage.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This was a jurisdictional ruling; the court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ contract, property, or other claims.

Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves and might be able to correct the jurisdictional defects, the court granted them 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims the plaintiffs wanted the court to consider had to be repeated in the amendment. If the plaintiffs did not comply, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered and to mail the order to the plaintiffs.