Joseph v. Troutman Sanders LLP

Background

Alfred Joseph, appearing without a lawyer, sued Troutman Sanders LLP, 1411 Broadway Associates LLC, Trizec Properties, Inc., Richard L. Swig, and Robert H. Arrow. The complaint invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged that Defendants wrongfully terminated Joseph from his investments and business. It listed numerous alleged wrongs, including an illegal lockout, misappropriation of funds and property, fraud, identity theft, corporate espionage, wrongful termination, racial discrimination, retaliation, and misrepresentation.

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening statute for actions filed without prepayment of fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute.

Rule 8 and Failure to State a Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court concluded that Joseph did not provide enough understandable facts about what any Defendant did to violate his rights. It described the complaint as a meandering narrative about business-related misappropriation and losses, including allegations involving investments through former President Barack Obama and events in the United States and internationally.

The court held that Joseph had not articulated a viable legal claim and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court also stated that Joseph’s allegations appeared to rise to the level of factual irrationality or frivolousness.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court separately explained that the complaint did not establish either asserted basis for federal jurisdiction. Merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not create jurisdiction. The facts the court could understand appeared to concern a business matter that might arise under New York law, rather than federal law.

The complaint also failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Joseph did not allege the citizenship of the members of the non-corporate business defendants, and he indicated that both individual defendants were citizens of New York, like him. The court therefore found no complete diversity. Joseph also did not allege facts plausibly showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Leave to Amend and Other Orders

Because Joseph was representing himself and might be able to allege additional facts, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must completely replace the original complaint and must provide an intelligible, short, and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant. It must also identify relevant people, describe the events and alleged injuries, state the relief sought, and include facts establishing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.

The court warned Joseph that continued filings that lack jurisdiction, are frivolous, or otherwise lack merit could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without prepayment of fees unless he first obtained permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. No summons would issue at that time, and all other pending matters in the case were terminated.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Joseph 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.