Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
Milhouse v. Morgan & Morgan, Judge Swain granted reconsideration, vacated the dismissal, and allowed Muhammad Milhouse to file another complaint.
Muhammad Milhouse may file a second amended complaint against Morgan & Morgan PLLC alone, subject to pleading diversity jurisdiction and more than $75,000 in controversy. The dismissal order and civil judgment were vacated.
What happened
In Muhammad Milhouse v. Morgan & Morgan PLLC, the court had dismissed Muhammad Milhouse’s state-law contract case because the parties did not have different citizenship as required for federal diversity jurisdiction. Milhouse then asked the court to reconsider, arguing that he and Morgan & Morgan were diverse and appearing to seek claims against that firm alone.
The court granted Milhouse’s motion for reconsideration. It ordered the Clerk to vacate the dismissal order and civil judgment, and directed Milhouse to file a second amended complaint naming Morgan & Morgan as the only defendant. The new complaint must state his claims and facts showing that more than $75,000 is at stake. If he does not file it within 30 days after receiving the order, the court will dismiss the amended complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. The order did not decide whether Milhouse’s contract claims are legally valid.
The detailed version
- Milhouse v. Morgan and Morgan P.A. · No. 1:23-cv-07016
- Katherine Failla
- May 20, 2024
Background
Muhammad Milhouse filed the case without a lawyer and asserted state-law breach-of-contract claims. He named Morgan & Morgan PLLC, described in the opinion as a Florida law firm, along with New York State attorneys. The court dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Milhouse and the defendants were not citizens of different states. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case.
The court allowed Milhouse to amend his complaint to remove nondiverse defendants whose presence defeated diversity jurisdiction. Milhouse filed an amended complaint on November 22, 2023, but again named nondiverse defendants. The court dismissed that complaint on March 18, 2024, and the Clerk entered judgment on March 20, 2024.
Motion and Ruling
On March 27, 2024, Milhouse filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the second dismissal. The court treated the filing as a request for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Milhouse stated that he sought to bring claims against Morgan & Morgan PLLC, the court granted the motion.
The court directed the Clerk to vacate the dismissal order and the civil judgment. It ordered Milhouse to file a second amended complaint within 30 days after receiving the order, naming Morgan & Morgan as the sole defendant. The complaint must state his claims against that defendant and facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court stated that it will dismiss the amended complaint if Milhouse does not file the second amended complaint within the allowed period.
Appeal and Effect
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. The order reopened the case for the limited next step of filing a second amended complaint; it did not decide the merits of Milhouse’s breach-of-contract claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.