Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited

Background

The court had previously dismissed this pro se action but allowed Peter Nikola Pesic to file another amended complaint. Pesic then filed a third amended complaint, which became the operative pleading. He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. The complaint asserted civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and claims that appeared to arise under state law based on diversity jurisdiction.

The court treated Pesic as the true plaintiff because the complaint described Plaintiff Advisors as a sole proprietorship with no separate legal existence. The court noted that Pesic had paid the filing fees and did not allege that he was an attorney.

Claims Seeking Criminal Prosecution

The court dismissed any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of a defendant for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that decisions to bring criminal charges belong to prosecutors, and neither a private plaintiff nor the court can direct prosecutors to initiate a criminal case. The court therefore concluded that Pesic lacked standing to seek that relief.

RICO Claims and Venue

The court dismissed Pesic’s civil RICO claims against all defendants because the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue for those claims. RICO’s venue provision permits a civil claim in a district where a defendant resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts business. The court found that Pesic had not alleged facts showing that any defendant met those conditions in this district. It also concluded that transferring the RICO claims was not in the interest of justice.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Pesic had standing to bring the civil RICO claims and noted that this was doubtful. The dismissal rested on improper venue, not on a final decision about the substance of the RICO allegations.

Remaining State-Law Claims

After liberally construing the third amended complaint, the court identified state-law claims against Talinka Trading Inc. and Tilley based on their alleged failure to pay Pesic costs or fees that they allegedly owed for services or expenses. The court found that the complaint did not raise non-RICO claims against the other defendants.

The court stated that the allegations appeared to establish diversity jurisdiction because Pesic alleged that he was a citizen of California, Talinka Trading Inc. was a citizen of Samoa, and Tilley was a citizen of Australia, and that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. The court also stated that New York might be a proper venue for these claims because Pesic alleged that he held securities connected to the dispute in custody in a New York bank account. Finally, the court concluded that Pesic alleged a direct injury from the claimed failure to pay him, supporting standing for these state-law claims.

Disposition and Service

Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed Pesic’s claims seeking criminal prosecution of any defendant for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also dismissed Pesic’s civil RICO claims against all defendants because they were filed in the wrong venue. The court directed the Clerk to issue summonses for Talinka Trading Inc. and Tilley, and only those two defendants. Pesic was required to serve them within ninety days after the summonses were issued or request an extension within that period if service abroad was required. The court stated that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.