Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp., Judge Swain dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to amend.
Damonte Brown’s case was dismissed because the court found no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, but he received 30 days to file an amended complaint.
What happened
In Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp., Damonte Brown, representing himself, sued the President/Founder of Alma Realty Corp. He appeared to seek damages and claimed federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and “liberty of party.”
The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because Brown alleged no facts showing a claim under federal law. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because Brown alleged that both he and the defendant were New York citizens and did not allege facts showing that more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but gave Brown 30 days to file an amended complaint showing a basis for federal jurisdiction. Judge Swain also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-02648
- Laura Swain
- May 16, 2022
Background
Damonte Brown, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action invoking diversity jurisdiction. He also identified “liberty of party” as a jurisdictional basis. The complaint sued the “President/Founder” of “Alma Realty Corp,” which the opinion describes as located in Long Island City, Queens County, New York. The complaint was unclear, but appeared to seek damages and other relief related to alleged business wrongdoing, termination, and ownership of property or rights.
The court had previously granted Brown permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It disregarded unrelated documents attached to his amended fee application that described alleged incidents at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. The court stated that Brown could raise those separate allegations in a separate civil action.
Jurisdiction analysis
Federal district courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a case. The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Merely naming a phrase such as “liberty of party” does not establish federal-question jurisdiction, and Brown alleged no facts showing a federal claim.
The court also explained that diversity jurisdiction requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states and requires more than $75,000 to be in dispute. Brown alleged that both he and the defendant were citizens of New York. He also alleged no facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction as well.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Brown was representing himself, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that if he did not amend within that period, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.