Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Background

Ashish S. Pandya brought the action without a lawyer against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He alleged that events involving personal property and business occurred between October 1, 2018, and December 14, 2023, but he did not specify where they occurred. He stated that he was a member of Miash Holdings LLC and referred to due-process rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the SEC’s alleged entrapment and conduct in the SEC v. Ripple case, accusations of fraud, cryptocurrency-market regulation, discrimination, public humiliation, and allegedly defamatory statements. He sought $30 million for alleged injustice, harm to himself and his family, defamation, pain and suffering, and public humiliation.

The court noted that Pandya and Miash Holdings LLC were not parties to the separate SEC v. Ripple case. The opinion did not determine the truth of Pandya’s factual allegations.

Claims on Behalf of Miash Holdings LLC and Family Members

The court held that a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent another entity in federal court. Pandya did not allege that he was an attorney, and he described Miash Holdings LLC as a limited liability company rather than a sole proprietorship. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims he asserted on behalf of Miash Holdings LLC or members of his family.

Claims Seeking Criminal Prosecution

To the extent Pandya sought criminal prosecution of other people under 18 U.S.C. § 242, the court dismissed those claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and neither Pandya nor the court could direct prosecutors to begin a criminal case. The court treated Pandya as lacking standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff have the necessary personal stake—to seek such a prosecution.

Claims Against the SEC and Sovereign Immunity

The court held that sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. It construed Pandya’s damages claims against the SEC as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States, because the proper defendant for such a claim is the United States rather than a federal agency.

The court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for defamation claims, including libel and slander. It therefore dismissed those claims against the SEC and the United States for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For any remaining Federal Tort Claims Act claims not specifically barred by the statute, the court found that Pandya had not alleged that he first filed an administrative claim for damages and received a final written determination, or that more than six months had passed since he filed such a claim. The court dismissed those claims as well for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Complaint for the stated reasons. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Pandya leave to amend within 30 days. Any amendment may assert only causes of action brought on Pandya’s own behalf and must specifically identify the basis on which sovereign immunity has been waived or otherwise abrogated. The court warned that failure to request additional time before the deadline would result in dismissal of the action in its entirety.