Schwenk v. Roxe Inc.

Background

Bryan Schwenk and Ahmed Elhenawy filed this self-represented action against their former employer, Roxe, Inc., and Haohan Xu, Maodong Xu, and Xiaoyu Li. They alleged that the defendants withheld salary and bonus compensation for work performed between October 17, 2022, and December 2, 2022, in violation of employment contracts. They sought $47,461.54 in damages and identified the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act as the legal basis for their claims.

The plaintiffs invoked federal-question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear claims arising under federal law. The court explained that merely citing federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it. Because the complaint relied on state law and alleged nonpayment of compensation under contracts, the court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing a federal claim. The court also noted that the plaintiffs did not allege facts suggesting that the Fair Labor Standards Act applied to their claims.

Diversity jurisdiction

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship—no plaintiff may share a state of citizenship with any defendant—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court understood the complaint to allege that Schwenk was a citizen of New York, Elhenawy was a citizen of New Jersey, Haohan Xu and Maodong Xu were citizens of New York, and Xiaoyu Li was a citizen of New Jersey. The court therefore found that the parties were not completely diverse. It also found that the requested $47,461.54 was below the required amount.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint that could establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, relevant names and titles, information about events and injuries, and the relief sought. It will replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims the plaintiffs want to keep must be repeated.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 1:23-CV-0715 (LTS). No summonses would issue at that time. The court stated that if the plaintiffs failed to comply and could not show good cause, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.