Tshiamala v. Cohen

Background

Oumar Ngeleka Tshiamala, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a breach-of-contract action against Dr. Steven A. Cohen. Tshiamala alleged that the parties agreed he would sell Cohen 2,000 kilograms of pharmaceutical-grade sea cucumber. He alleged that 500 kilograms, valued at $1.6 million, arrived at Detroit Airport on or about September 25, 2020, but Cohen did not pay. He further alleged that the remaining 1,500 kilograms, valued at $4 million, were stored at Douala Airport and were seized after Tshiamala could not pay storage and security fees. Tshiamala sought compensatory and punitive damages. The complaint included documents in French that appeared to include text messages, a contract, and other sales documents.

The court had previously granted Tshiamala permission to proceed without paying filing fees. That status required the court to review the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented claims over which the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented filings are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Jurisdiction

The court understood the complaint as asserting a state-law contract claim under diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction can apply when the parties are citizens of different states or when one party is a citizen of a state and the other is a citizen of a foreign country, and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. The court said the complaint appeared to satisfy those requirements because Tshiamala alleged an amount above the statutory threshold and alleged that the parties were diverse.

The court found, however, that the complaint did not sufficiently establish personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s legal power over a defendant. The court explained that Tshiamala needed to make legally sufficient allegations showing why New York could exercise that power over Cohen. Under New York law, those allegations could include that Cohen was domiciled in New York, was served there, regularly did business there, transacted related business there, contracted to supply goods or services there, committed a relevant act there, caused a relevant injury there, or owned or possessed real property there.

The complaint alleged that Cohen resided in New York City but also listed an address in Michigan. The court found that Tshiamala did not allege facts showing that Cohen was domiciled or continuously and systematically doing business in New York, contracted to supply goods or services there, caused an injury there, or possessed real property there. The court also observed that the alleged wrongful conduct appeared to have occurred outside New York and that no injury in New York was alleged.

Venue

The court also found that venue—the proper federal district in which to bring the case—was unclear. Tshiamala alleged that a substantial part of the events occurred in Detroit, Michigan, but provided no facts showing that a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York or that Cohen resided in that district. The court noted that it could transfer the action to another federal district in the interest of justice if Tshiamala supplied facts showing that the other district was a proper venue and that New York was not.

Documents in French

The court stated that federal court proceedings must be conducted in English and that it could not review the attached French-language documents. If Tshiamala amended the complaint, the court required that the attachments be in English or be accompanied by English translations.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Tshiamala might be able to allege additional facts establishing personal jurisdiction and proper venue, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims Tshiamala wanted the court to consider had to be repeated in the new filing. The court instructed him to provide facts about the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief, along with addresses for defendants if available.

The court ordered that the amended complaint be submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-1642 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Tshiamala did not comply within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the alleged contract claim.