Maoz v. Aple Shop

Background

Oded Maoz, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He alleged that he bought a phone from an Apple store on East 59th Street in Manhattan and later returned with his receipt to have it repaired. According to the complaint, an employee deleted approximately 2,000 pictures that Maoz had collected over two years, did not repair the phone, and told him to leave. Maoz alleged that the defendant stole the pictures by deleting them and refusing to restore them, and he sought $1,000,000 in damages.

The court had previously granted Maoz permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It reviewed the complaint under the federal law requiring dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks damages from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

The court held that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction. Although Maoz invoked that jurisdiction, the alleged facts did not suggest that any federal law had been violated.

The court also considered whether diversity jurisdiction might exist for claims under New York law. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be at issue. Maoz provided a New York mailing address but did not state where he was permanently domiciled. The court stated that the defendant, referred to as Apple in this portion of the opinion, is incorporated and has its principal place of business in California. Because Maoz’s domicile was not stated, the court could not determine whether the parties were citizens of different states.

The court also found that the facts alleged did not suggest that Maoz could recover more than $75,000. It did not conclude that this requirement could not be met, however, because Maoz identified himself as an artist and suggested that the deleted pictures had value.

Order

The court granted Maoz 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to provide more facts supporting each claim, identify the relevant people and their roles, describe what happened and when and where it happened, describe Maoz’s injuries, state the relief sought, provide residential addresses as required for jurisdiction and service, and explain the basis for federal jurisdiction. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint entirely, so Maoz had to repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wanted the court to consider.

The court did not issue a summons at that time. It stated that if Maoz failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court granted Maoz leave to amend his complaint within 60 days. It did not dismiss the complaint in this order.