Westfal v. Westfal

Background

Charles Richard Westfal, who represented himself, sued Michael Franklin Westfal, Kenneth C. Glassman, Brennan Doyle, Paramount, Jeffrey Dw orin, Wells Fargo, Ryan Kilbane, Olivia De Salvo, and Clare Ashforth. The complaint alleged that people connected to entertainment, media, legal, technology, and financial companies damaged Westfal’s reputation, career, psychological health, and employment prospects. Westfal listed constitutional rights and employment discrimination as the rights allegedly violated and sought between $500,000 and $1 million in damages.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under federal law. Westfal’s constitutional claims were treated as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims for constitutional violations by people acting for a state or local government. The court found that all defendants were private parties and that Westfal did not allege that they worked for a state or other government body. The complaint therefore could not state a § 1983 claim against them. The court also found that Westfal alleged no facts showing that he had been employed by any defendant or that an employer discriminated against him because of a protected characteristic. It concluded that the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires that the plaintiff and every defendant be citizens of different states, along with a claim exceeding $75,000. Westfal alleged that he was a citizen of Connecticut. He supplied what appeared to be New York work addresses for some defendants and a Connecticut residential address for Ashforth, but he did not provide residential addresses for several defendants and provided no address for De Salvo. The court therefore could not determine whether those defendants were citizens of states different from Westfal. Separately, because Westfal and Ashforth were both alleged to be Connecticut residents, the complaint did not allege complete diversity.

Pleading defects

The court also found that the complaint did not meet Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Westfal made broad allegations that he had been harmed, harassed, defamed, extorted, and intimidated, but provided few specific supporting facts. To the extent he described particular events, he did not explain how the named defendants were involved. The court gave the example of allegations about “CBS-Paramount” using technology to defame and harass him without facts showing that any individual defendant participated.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Westfal 30 days to replead any state-law claims in an amended complaint. The court stated that the amended complaint must drop Ashforth, allege facts showing complete diversity between Westfal and the remaining defendants, comply with Rule 8, and provide enough facts to state a viable state-law claim against each defendant. The court kept the matter open until judgment was entered and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying Westfal permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.