Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan, Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint because the court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
Muhammad Milhouse, whose amended state-law complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the named defendants were affected by the entry of judgment.
What happened
Muhammad Milhouse sued Morgan and Morgan, P.A., and four other defendants over state-law claims. The court had previously dismissed the case because the parties did not have the citizenship differences needed for diversity jurisdiction and allowed Milhouse to amend his complaint.
Milhouse filed an amended complaint naming four defendants, all of whom worked at a New York law firm in New York County. The court concluded that he still had not shown that it could hear his state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A. · No. 1:23-cv-07016
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 18, 2024
Background
Muhammad Milhouse, described as a New York resident, brought state-law claims against Morgan and Morgan, P.A.; Kathleen Beatty; Tara Cruz; Tariq Shury; and John Doe/Jane Doe. The opinion states that the defendants reside in New York and Florida.
In an earlier order dated October 27, 2023, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because Milhouse and some defendants resided in New York. The court gave Milhouse 30 days to file an amended complaint dropping dispensable defendants whose presence defeated diversity of citizenship.
Milhouse filed an amended complaint on November 22, 2023, naming four defendants. The opinion states that all four worked at a New York law firm in New York County.
Ruling
The court concluded that Milhouse still had not shown that it could exercise diversity jurisdiction over his state-law claims. It therefore dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This was a jurisdictional dismissal; the opinion did not decide the underlying state-law claims.
The complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court certified under § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. It also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.