Shi v. Delta Realty Group, LLC

Background

Shuang Long Shi brought this action without a lawyer against Addi Gateno and Delta Realty Group, LLC. The complaint concerns a laundromat at 3628 White Plains Road in Bronx County, New York. Shi alleged that he was not a party to the relevant transactions and disputed being a guarantor of a lease. He relied in part on a statement from Lifeng Jin saying that Shi was not a party to, or guarantor of, any agreement involving the laundromat and that Delta Realty Group had created a “made up fake contract.”

Delta Realty Group had previously sued Shi and Lifeng Jin in Bronx County Civil Court. That court entered a judgment of $126,160 against Shi and Jin. Shi alleged in this federal case that Delta Realty Group and Gateno took a total of $608,953.54 from his Chase and Citibank accounts and sought that amount in damages.

Federal Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims or over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Shi did not invoke federal-question jurisdiction, and the court found no apparent federal-law basis in his allegations about the lease or enforcement of the judgment.

Shi met the amount-in-controversy requirement, but he did not provide enough information to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although he alleged that he was domiciled in New Jersey, the address he provided for Gateno appeared to be Delta Realty Group’s business address, which did not establish Gateno’s domicile. The court also explained that a limited liability company is a citizen of every state where its members are citizens. Shi did not identify Delta Realty Group’s members or their citizenships, so the court could not determine the company’s citizenship.

State-Court Judgment and Federal Review

The court discussed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal district courts from acting as appeals courts to review and reject state-court judgments. The court found that Shi was challenging the Bronx County judgment to the extent he claimed that funds were restrained or seized under an erroneous judgment because he was not a party to or guarantor of the lease. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear that challenge.

The court distinguished a possible claim that defendants restrained or seized more money than the state-court judgment authorized. The complaint suggested that the judgment authorized restraint of $120,160, while Shi alleged that more than $600,000 was taken. The court stated that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar a claim based on amounts allegedly taken beyond the judgment’s authorization. To pursue such a claim, however, Shi had to amend the complaint to plead facts establishing federal jurisdiction and explaining the alleged excess seizure.

Order

The court granted Shi 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must provide facts about Gateno’s domicile, the identity and domiciles of Delta Realty Group’s members, the alleged seizure of amounts beyond the state-court judgment, the relevant events, the defendants’ actions, Shi’s injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Shi wants to preserve must be repeated.

The court did not issue a summons at that time. It stated that if Shi failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.