Isaac et al v. Abad

Filing 10

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the failure of Isaac to comply with this Courts directives, and for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Isaacs Motion for Judgment 9 is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice. The Clerk mailed a copy of this Memorandum and order to plaintiff at the address listed on the docket. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ALEX F. ISAAC, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FERNANDO ABAD,
Defendant.

Civil Action No.
16-10330-NMG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
I.

Introduction
On May 10, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order

(Docket No. 7) dismissing all claims of one plaintiff, Para
Sports & Entertainment (“PSE”), for the reasons stated therein.
Further, this Court directed the remaining plaintiff, Alex F.
Isaac (“Isaac”), to file an Amended Complaint within 35 days
setting forth plausible claims upon which relief may be granted
based on alleged wrongdoings to him and not to PSE.

As an

additional matter, this Court questioned whether it had diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) in view of the
dismissal of PSE’s claims, and thus directed Isaac to demonstrate
a good faith basis for asserting that the amount in controversy,
based on his individual claims, exceeded $75,000.00.
On June 14, 2016, Isaac filed a self-prepared “Motion for
Judgement Against Defendand [sic] Fernando Abad” (Docket No.
9)(“Motion for Judgment”).

In that motion, Isaac essentially

reiterates his claims in the Complaint, albeit with some
modifications.

He alleges that the defendant borrowed $20,000.00

from PSE through a third party lender.

Thereafter, defendant

borrowed $5,000.00 and Isaac’s personal credit card was used to
secure an apartment for the defendant’s spring training in
Florida.

Isaac alleges that the defendant agreed to reimburse

him for travel and living expenses since Isaac had covered those
costs up-front, making the total expenses owed of $9,100.00.
Thereafter, as previously alleged in the Complaint, the defendant
denied having knowledge of the loan and claimed that Isaac owed
the defendant $10,518.88.

Isaac alleges that a few weeks later,

most of his clients left him and signed on with other agents,
allegedly because of conversations they had with the defendant
and the Major League Baseball Player Association.

He claims the

defendant defamed his character by spreading vicious rumors
concerning “our” business practices.

Motion for Judgment (Docket

No. 9 at ¶ 4).
II.

Discussion
As an initial matter, Isaac has failed to file an Amended

Complaint as directed.

Notably, Isaac initiated this action as a

Motion for Judgment, which this Court construed as his Complaint.
See Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 4 at 2).

Even if this Court

were to construe his recent Motion for Judgment as his Amended
Complaint, it still is legally deficient.

This Court directed

Isaac to set forth only his personal claims; however, in his
Motion for Judgment, Isaac fails to delineate clearly which of
his claims belong to him and which of his claims belong to PSE.
For instance, he indicates that PSE arranged for the $20,000.00
loan for the defendant, but it is unclear whether he or PSE lent
the defendant $5,000.00 thereafter.

It is also unclear whether

Isaac’s actions in fronting travel and living expenses for the

2

defendant was made by him in his personal capacity or on behalf
of the company.

If Isaac was acting as PSE’s agent (as appears

to be the case), the claims for reimbursement inure to PSE and
not to him personally.

As this Court noted previously, Isaac

cannot assert claims on behalf of his company unless the claims
are presented in this Court through a duly-licensed attorney.
Additionally, although Isaac alleges that some of his
clients have left “him” due to the defendant’s defamation of his
business practices, it reasonably can be presumed that the
clients have left the agency (PSE) and not Isaac personally.
Thus, Isaac again appears to assert claims belonging to PSE.
Next, to the extent that Isaac asserts that he has been
defamed (as opposed to PSE), he has failed to set forth plausible
defamation claims in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to include in

the complaint, inter alia, “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Fed. R.

This statement must “‘give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests,’”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see
Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005).

It must

afford the defendant(s) a “[‘]meaningful opportunity to mount a
defense,’”

Díaz-Rivera v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 377 F.3d 119, 123

(1st Cir. 2004)(quoting Rodríguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp., 57
F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)).

“In a civil rights action as

in any other action . . . , the complaint should at least set
forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and

3

why.”

Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez, 367

F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004).
Here, Isaac fails to set forth any underlying factual
information in support of his allegations that would give the
defendant sufficient notice of his claims and the grounds upon
which they are based.

Generally, this Court would afford a

plaintiff an opportunity to further amend a deficient complaint;
however, in this case, there is no need to do so, in light of the
jurisdictional impediment presented.

Specifically, Isaac was

directed to demonstrate the diversity jurisdiction of this Court
by showing that his amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.
On this record, this Court cannot find that Isaac has
sufficiently met his burden.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, for the failure of Isaac to comply with this
Court’s directives, and for the lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, Isaac’s Motion for Judgment (Docket No. 9) is
DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety
without prejudice.

So ordered.

Dated: June 30, 2016

/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge

4