EMRIT v. THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Granting 1 -1 IFP Application; dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. (Notice of Certified and Regular Mail). Signed by Judge Julien Xavier Neals on 3/10/2025. (adc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

Civil Action No. 24-04707 (JXN) (JSA)

Plaintiff,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA; EMBASSY
OF CUBA IN THE UNITED STATES;
CUBAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE; AND
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

Defendants.
NEALS, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s 1
(“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1), and application to proceed in forma pauperis (the “IFP
Application”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons set forth below,
the Court will grant Plaintiff's IFP Application and dismiss the Complaint.
A.

Plaintiff’s IFP Application
1.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must carefully review the IFP Application,

“and, if convinced that [Plaintiff] is unable to pay the court costs and filing fees, . . . grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.” Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 F.App'x 130, 132 (3d Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s IFP Application, the Court finds leave to proceed
without prepayment of fees and costs is warranted, and the IFP Application will be granted.

Plaintiff also refers to himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 & Presidential Committee/Political
Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund (SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits of America. (Compl. at
*1.)
1

B.

Plaintiff’s Complaint
2.

Plaintiff filed this action against the Republic of Cuba, the Embassy of Cuba in the

United States, the Cuban Intelligence Services, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (collectively
“Defendants”) on April 9, 2024. (See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 6-9, ECF No. 1). In his Complaint,
Plaintiff asserts thirteen claims 2 on behalf of two Cuban nationals he wished to marry, Rachel
Berreiro Garcia, in 1999, and “political prisoner,” Magna Gargallo Perez, in 2009, and/or Cuban
citizens generally for alleged wrongdoings of the Cuban government. (See generally Compl.) 3
Plaintiff is seeking a judgment of $45,000,000 and an injunction requiring the Cuban government
to convert to a democratic system and a capitalistic or laissez/fair economy. (See Compl. at *1213.) 4
a. Venue
3.

While Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction in this venue is proper “pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

Sections 1391 and 1400” (Compl. ¶ 16), venue does not appear to be in the District of New Jersey.
A civil action may be commenced in a judicial district in which (1) “any defendant resides”; (2)
where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”; or (3) “if

The thirteen causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint include false imprisonment through transferred intent (Count
One); Trespass (Count Two); trespass to chattels (Count Three); conversion (Count Four); intentional infliction of
emotional distress (Count Five); products liability (Count Six); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count
Seven); breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (count eight); abnormally dangerous activity
(Count Nine); strict liability for wild animals (Count Ten); tortious interference with family relations (Count Eleven);
tortious interference with business relations (Count Twelve); public nuisance (Count Thirteen). (See Compl. ¶¶ 2558.)

2

For example, Plaintiff alleges the Cuban government: “imprison[ed ] the plaintiff’s romantic interest Magna Gargallo
Perez for trying to practice Christianity[]” (Compl. ¶ 26); “trespassed on the lands and especially sugar plantations of
many Cuban Americans who fled in exile to Southern Florida” (Compl. ¶ 32); “mismanage[d ] abnormally dangerous
animals such as mosquitos [] and caymans, and Burmese pythons or anacondas which pose a significant risk to
American travelers” (Compl. ¶ 53); “created a public nuisance by essentially inviting Americans and Canadians to
enter their country for vacation purposes to circumvent an embargo in place without first respecting the human rights
concerns of Cuban citizens who have been negatively affected [] by the implementation of a Communist government
and socialist economy….” (Compl. ¶ 58.)

3

4

Pin-cites preceded by asterisks refer to the pagination atop the CM/ECF header.

neither of the foregoing provisions applies, in a district in which ‘any defendant is subject to the
court's personal jurisdiction.’” Blanding v. Walmart, Inc., No. CV 23-3303 (RMB/EAP), 2023 WL
11228068, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2023) (summarizing the statutory venue requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)). A court may sua sponte raise considerations of venue. Bent Glass Design v.
Scienstry, Inc., No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (“[W]hile venue is
initially reliant on a plaintiff's preference as reflected in the pleadings, a district court may upon
motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice
and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses.”).
4.

Here, Plaintiff does not make a colorable claim that venue lies in the District of

New Jersey. Plaintiff states that he is a resident of Florida and Maryland. 5 (See Compl. ¶ 13.)
Plaintiff does not allege that any named Defendant resides in New Jersey; there is no indication
that any event he describes occurred here; 6 and there is no suggestion that this Court could exercise
personal jurisdiction over any named Defendant. 7 As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to establish proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 8 However, because this Court

5
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he spends half of the year in each location and has provided a mailing address
in both states. (See Compl. ¶ 5, p. *14.)

For example, Counts One, Five, and Eleven of Plaintiff’s Complaint are made on behalf of Plaintiff’s past romantic
interest, a political prisoner in Cuba. (See Compl. ¶¶ 26, 40-41, 54). Counts Two through Four are made on behalf of
Cuban Americans for the alleged harm Defendants have inflicted on the land and sugar plantations in Cuba. (See
Compl. ¶¶ 31-39.) Counts Six through Eight discuss Cuban cigars circumventing the United States without
establishing a factual and relevant connection to New Jersey. (See Compl. ¶¶ 42-49.) Counts Nine, Ten, and Twelve
fail to establish any relevant ties to New Jersey overall. (See Compl. ¶¶ 52, 53, 56.) Lastly, Count Thirteen raises an
alleged harm due to Americans and Canadians entering Cuba for vacation. (See Compl. ¶ 58.) Additionally, Plaintiff
has acknowledged that Defendants are not residents of the United States on the Civil Cover Sheet (See ECF No. 1-3.)

6

Plaintiff’s only assertion about jurisdiction concerns an alleged nexus between Defendants’ “political and economic
policies” and “the state of Delaware and the other 49 states[.]” (Compl. at *13.)

7

8
Because the Complaint is subject to dismissal, the Court has not considered whether subject matter jurisdiction is
present in this case or whether Plaintiff has standing.

finds that transferring this case to another district or venue would not be in the interest of justice, 9
the Court will instead dismiss the case on statutory screening for the following reasons.
b. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint
5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court must screen Plaintiff's Complaint

for sua sponte dismissal prior to service, and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. “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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Schreane v. Seana, 506 F. App'x 120, 122
(3d Cir. 2012) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).
6.

Plaintiff is the only named plaintiff in the Complaint. To the extent that he seeks to

assert claims on behalf of Rachel Berreiro Garcia, Magna Gargallo Perez, or Cuban citizens
generally based on the acts or omissions of Defendants, those claims cannot proceed. As a nonattorney, Plaintiff may not act as an attorney for other individuals and may only represent himself
in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Walthour v. Child & Youth Servs., 728 F. 2 Supp. 2d 628,
630 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (“[A]lthough an individual is entitled to represent himself pro se, he may
not act as an attorney on behalf of others in federal court.”). Further, to the extent that Plaintiff is
asserting that he was damaged by the experiences of Rachel Berreiro Garcia, Magna Gargallo
Perez, or other Cuban citizens, he has failed to plead any factual allegations in support of the same.

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit against Defendants in the District Court of South Carolina. See
Emrit v. Republic of Cuba, No. 3:24-CV-01738-DCC, 2024 WL 2745560, at *2 (D.S.C. May 29, 2024), aff'd sub nom.
Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 v. Republic of Cuba, No. 24-1532, 2024 WL 3983960 (4th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024)
(summarily dismissing the action). Further, it appears that Plaintiff filed in the District of New Jersey with the
expectation that this case would be transferred to another venue. Plaintiff requests that if the District Court of Delaware
decides that they do not have jurisdiction to preside over [the] case involving the ‘Cuban defendants” because more
expansive international law concerns” that this case be transferred to the International Court of Justice. (Compl at
*14.)
9

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (providing that an adequate complaint must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). This case will be dismissed
as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The Court finds that an amendment would be futile.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 10th day of March 2025,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 1-1) is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); it is further
ORDERED that leave to amend is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via
certified and regular mail and CLOSE this matter.

_________________________
JULIEN XAVIER NEALS
United States District Judge