Patel v. Patel

Background

Raj K. Patel, representing himself, sued his brother, Neal K. Patel, and Neal’s wife, Sanjana Kumar. He alleged that Neal repeatedly called him “gangu” or “ganglia,” including in person and by text, and that the conduct caused stress and harmed his reputation. The complaint asserted defamation, “verbal battery,” trespass, harassment, invasion of privacy, fraud, several other state-law theories, and a citation to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Raj sought more than $500 million in damages.

The court had previously allowed Raj to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because the complaint was filed without prepayment, the court was required to dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

Raj invoked diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires that opposing parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in dispute plausibly exceed $75,000. The court found that the complaint did not allege the parties’ state citizenship. Although it listed an Indiana address for Raj and New York addresses for the defendants, those addresses did not establish citizenship.

The court also found that Raj did not allege facts making the claimed damages plausible. Although he requested many hundreds of millions of dollars for reputational harm and emotional suffering, he alleged no facts showing actual reputational damage or specific effects on his mental health. The court therefore concluded that there was no diversity jurisdiction.

Claims

The court separately explained that, even if diversity jurisdiction existed, the complaint did not state viable state-law claims. Several asserted theories— including “verbal battery,” “trespass of scope,” “negligent breach of specific (social) duty,” “breach of contract-in-law-duty,” and “disbarment”—were not recognized claims that arose under state law as presented. The court also stated that Raj could not use a lawsuit to obtain his brother’s disbarment.

The court found no facts supporting claims for trespass, harassment, invasion of privacy, or fraud. It addressed defamation in more detail. Under the law the court applied, defamation requires a false and defamatory written or oral statement concerning the plaintiff, communication to a third party, fault, and either special damages or a statement actionable without proof of special damages.

The complaint did not allege that anyone other than Raj saw Neal’s text or heard the alleged comments. It therefore did not adequately allege communication to a third party. The court also held that the alleged references to Raj as “gangu” or “ganglia” were name-calling and not provable statements of fact, so they were not actionable as defamation. Finally, the complaint made no specific allegations explaining how Kumar violated the law or injured Raj.

The court rejected the Religious Freedom Restoration Act theory because that statute addresses substantial burdens imposed by the federal government, while the complaint named Raj’s brother and sister-in-law and alleged no government involvement.

Leave to Amend and Filing Restriction

The court declined to allow Raj to amend the complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also discussed Raj’s history of filing cases that courts had found frivolous and the warnings or filing restrictions issued in prior related proceedings. Because a filing restriction requires notice and an opportunity to respond, the court ordered Raj to show cause—meaning explain why the restriction should not be imposed—within 30 days.

The proposed restriction would bar Raj from filing further actions without paying fees in this court unless he first obtained permission. The court stated that the restriction would be imposed if he failed to submit the required declaration or failed to show good cause. The order itself did not immediately impose the restriction.

Disposition

The court dismissed Raj’s complaint under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepaying fees and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied all pending motions as moot, including the motions concerning filing a redacted complaint. It kept the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Raj permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The judge signed the order as Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.