Spencerel v. Corcoran
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Spencerel v. Corcoran, Judge Swain dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, allowed 30 days to replead, and denied summary judgment as moot.
Abdullah Spencerel’s federal action against Corcoran and Zillow was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he received 30 days to replead. His summary-judgment motion was denied as moot, and fee-free status was denied for an appeal.
What happened
In Spencerel v. Corcoran, Abdullah Spencerel, representing himself, sued Corcoran and Zillow over his alleged ownership of property at 432 W. 162nd Street in New York. He alleged that the defendants took, refurbished, and offered the property for sale without his consent, and sought help regaining access.
The court concluded that it could not hear the case because Spencerel alleged that he was a New York citizen and that Corcoran was a New York company. The court treated his state-law claims as potentially invoking diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 at stake.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, with 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court said Spencerel could name Zillow alone if he could allege the required facts, including Zillow’s involvement, the amount at stake, and why the case was timely. The court also denied his summary-judgment motion as moot and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Spencerel v. Corcoran · No. 1:24-cv-01868
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 29, 2024
Background
Abdullah Spencerel, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action titled as a “notice of motion for ejectment N.Y. RPP § 123.” He named Corcoran, which the court understood to mean the Corcoran Group, and Zillow. Spencerel alleged that after his arrest in 2008, he vacated the property at 432 W. 162nd Street in New York, New York; that the defendants took and refurbished the property; and that they placed it on the market without his legal consent. He also alleged that a Manhattan judge awarded him title in 2013. He asked the court to help him safely reenter the property.
The court had previously allowed Spencerel to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The opinion states that his complaint invoked New York law, so the court construed it as relying on diversity jurisdiction. That form of federal jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Jurisdictional ruling
The court concluded that the complaint suggested the parties were not diverse because Spencerel stated that he was a New York citizen and sued the Corcoran Group, which the opinion described as a New York real estate company. The court therefore held that it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction. It dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because this was a threshold jurisdictional ruling, the court did not decide whether Spencerel owned the property or whether the defendants violated his rights.
Leave to replead
The court gave Spencerel 30 days to file an amended complaint. It stated that, if he believed Zillow was not a New York citizen and wanted to pursue a state-law claim against Zillow in federal court, he could name Zillow as the sole defendant. He would need to allege facts showing that Zillow violated his rights concerning the property, that Zillow was actually involved in denying him access, that more than $75,000 was at stake, and that the action was timely in light of the complaint’s indication that the latest events occurred in 2013. Alternatively, he could pursue the matter in state court and file nothing further in this federal case; the court said it would then direct entry of judgment within 30 days, without prejudice to a state-court action.
Other rulings
The court denied Spencerel’s motion for summary judgment as moot. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.