Miles-Baker v. NatWest Group PLC

Background

Eric Tymell Miles-Baker, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He alleged that he was a New York citizen and that NatWest Group PLC was a British public limited company incorporated under United Kingdom law with its principal place of business in Edinburgh, Scotland. He asked the court to help him secure an alleged inheritance, arrange correspondence with NatWest, transfer assets to him in the United Kingdom, and issue him a passport. He attached documents that he said showed his family’s coat of arms, his ancestry, and a name change.

The court had previously allowed Miles-Baker to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because he was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to interpret his self-represented filing liberally.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that NatWest was a citizen of the United Kingdom and that the parties were diverse. But diversity jurisdiction also requires a real dispute between the parties and an alleged amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court concluded that Miles-Baker had not presented a real dispute for the court to decide. His requests for legal advice, a passport, and an order transferring assets did not show a concrete controversy between parties with opposing legal interests. The court also found that he had not alleged facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court noted that the Secretary of State, rather than a federal court, has authority to issue passports. It also directed Miles-Baker to explain in an amended complaint why the probate exception—which limits federal courts’ authority over certain estate and probate matters—did not prevent the case from proceeding.

The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Venue

The court separately ruled that Miles-Baker had not shown that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue. He did not allege facts showing that NatWest resided in that district, that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred there, that relevant property was located there, or that NatWest was subject to personal jurisdiction there for this action.

The court therefore additionally dismissed the action as pending in the wrong venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It granted Miles-Baker leave to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing why this court was a proper venue.

Leave to Amend and Other Disposition

The court granted Miles-Baker 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. The court instructed him to provide specific facts about his claims, including the relevant people and their titles, what NatWest allegedly did or failed to do, when and where events occurred, his injuries, and the relief he seeks. He must also repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that he wants the court to consider.

The court warned that if Miles-Baker did not timely file an amended complaint and could not show good cause for the failure, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reasons stated in the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because it was pending in the wrong venue, while granting Miles-Baker leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.