King v. King

Background

Sharif King, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, sued Sharod King over an alleged breach of contract. The complaint alleged that, in June 2019, Sharif King agreed to sell Sharod King a 1999 Prevost H3-45 coach bus for $112,000. Sharod King allegedly was required to deliver a check for that amount to Sharif King’s agent in Stockbridge, Georgia, but the check was allegedly fabricated and not connected to any bank account.

Sharif King also alleged that Sharod King used the bus to transport firearms and ammunition between Virginia and Queens, New York, without Sharif King’s knowledge. According to the complaint, New York City police officers arrested Sharod King on July 21, 2020, and seized the bus. Sharif King sought $112,000 in compensatory damages and invoked the court’s authority to hear disputes between citizens of different states.

Diversity Jurisdiction

For federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that the parties are citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court stated that an individual’s citizenship generally depends on the person’s domicile—the person’s fixed home and intended place of return.

Sharif King alleged that he was a resident of Georgia because he lived there before incarceration and planned to return there after release. But he did not allege facts about Sharod King’s domicile before incarceration. The court therefore found that the complaint did not contain enough facts to establish diversity jurisdiction, although the allegations suggested that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

Venue

Venue is the proper federal district for a lawsuit. The court stated that the alleged payment event occurred in Stockbridge, Henry County, Georgia, so the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue under the provision allowing a case where a defendant resides when the requirements for that provision are met. The court stated that the Northern District of Georgia appeared to be a proper venue. It also said that venue in the Southern District of New York might not be proper under the provision concerning where substantial events occurred because Sharod King’s pre-arrest domicile was unclear.

The court advised that, if an amended complaint showed that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue, the court might transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Sharif King might be able to provide additional facts supporting a valid breach-of-contract claim, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to provide relevant facts, the identities and titles of relevant people, the events and their approximate dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief sought.

The order did not decide the merits of the breach-of-contract claim. It granted leave to file an amended complaint, directed that no summons issue at that time, and stated that the complaint would be dismissed if Sharif King failed to comply within the allowed time without showing good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.