EMRIT v. INDEPENDENT MUSIC AWARDS et al
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER; ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint without the prepayment of fees and securit y; FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 12/3/2014. (ld, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Plaintiff,
14-CV-6751 (WJM)
v.
OPINION AND ORDER
INDEPENDENT MUSIC AWARDS, and
SONICBIRDS, INC.,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald Emrit’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons set forth below,
Emrit’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) and his Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I.
BACKROUND
Emrit is a citizen of Nevada. According to Emrit, Defendants Independent Music
Awards (“IMA”) and Sonicbirds, Inc. (“Sonicbirds”) are partner companies “in the music
industry” with their principle places of business in New Jersey and Massachusetts,
respectively. (See Complt. at ¶¶ 3-5, 12). IMA also appears to be the name of the music
competition that is the subject of Emrit’s Complaint. (See Complt. at ¶ 12).
Emrit alleges that in 2013 he paid Defendants $160 in exchange for the opportunity
to submit seven of his music videos to the IMA competition. (Complt. at ¶ 13). While
not entirely apparent from the face of the Complaint, it appears that the IMA competition
received music videos from amateur artists and then selected the best videos as winners.
Emrit alleges that he never heard back from IMA or Songbirds after he submitted his
videos, which according to the Complaint means that Defendants must have never actually
viewed his submissions. Emrit provides no factual basis for his suspicions; instead he
asserts his firm belief “that none of the judges actually judged his music…[in an] attempt[]
to take advantage of the naiveté and dreams of ‘making it big’ which are held by every
1
aspiring recording artist and musician.” (Complt. at ¶ 15). Seeking damages of $250,000
and other non-monetary relief, Emrit asserts the following causes of action: (1) negligence;
(2) intentional misrepresentation – fraud; (3) tortious interference with contract; (4) breach
of contract; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) conversion.
II.
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, the Court will raise sua sponte its concern that it does not
possess subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc.,
347 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2003). Emrit asserts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which
requires complete diversity between the parties and an amount-in-controversy that exceeds
$75,000. When determining whether a Complaint premised on diversity jurisdiction
meets the amount-in-controversy requirement, “[t]he inquiry should be objective and not
based on fanciful, ‘pie-in-the-sky,’ or simply wishful amounts, because otherwise the
policy to limit diversity jurisdiction will be frustrated.” Samuel-Bassett v. KIA Motors
America, Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 403 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, Emrit claims $250,000 in
damages despite only paying Defendants $160 in connection with the contest at issue.
Even if Emrit could succeed on his claims and receive punitive and treble damages, the
Court cannot conceive of a realistic scenario in which Emrit would be entitled to an amount
exceeding $75,000.
Assuming Emrit could meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, he has
nonetheless failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. When reviewing an
application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court shall dismiss the case if it determines that
the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as that for dismissing a
complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).” Ryals v. Montgomery Cnty., 515 F. App'x
75, 76 (3d Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Ryals v. Montgomery Cnty., Pa., 134 S. Ct. 274, 187
L. Ed. 2d 198 (2013) reh'g denied, 134 S. Ct. 991, 187 L. Ed. 2d 840 (2014). Under the
12(b)(6) framework, a complaint must be dismissed if it relies solely on “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements….”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Moreover, the complaint’s “[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
The Court finds that Emrit’s Complaint falls woefully short of meeting the standard
required for avoiding dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Emrit’s suspicion that
Defendants did not view or judge his submissions is unsupported by any specific factual
allegations; it is instead solely premised on conclusory assertions tethered to recitals of the
causes of action asserted in his Complaint. While Emrit asserts his “firm belief” that
2
Defendants wronged him by failing to review his submissions, he provides no specific
factual allegations that would allow this Court to reasonably infer that the contest was
fraudulent. Similarly, Emrit does not allege a duty on the part of Defendants that would
support a negligence claim, nor does he allege the existence of any contract or reasonable
business expectation needed to support his breach of contract and tortious interference
claims. With respect to his intentional inflection of emotional distress claim, Emrit alleges
no facts to allow a reasonable inference that Defendants’ conduct was extreme and
outrageous. Finally, the conversion claim fails to, among other things, allege any specific
facts that would allow a court to reasonably infer a right of possession belonging to Emrit.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown
IT IS on this 3rd day of December, 2014, hereby,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint
without the prepayment of fees and security; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?