Harris et al v. John Doe

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment. Although plaintiffs paid the filing fee to bring this acti on, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken ingood faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).SO Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 6/19/2018. (Tavarez, Jennifer)

FILED

IN CLEAK1S OFFICE
US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

t

--------------------------------------------------------------------x
DERRICK HARRIS and TAMMY FORD,

JUN 20 2018

*

~ROOKLYN OFFICE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
17-CV-1256 (WFK)

Plaintiffs,
V.

JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------x
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs Derrick Harris and Tammy Ford, who are residents of Brooklyn, New York,
I

.

filed this prose action for defamation against a John Doe defendantjand paid the filing fee. By
Memorandum and Order dated April 24, 2018, the action was dismissed for lack of subject
I

matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). ECF No. 4./ Plaintiffs were granted 30
days leave to file an amended complaint to set forth sufficient facts 'o meet the citizenship and
amount in controversy requirements to establish diversity jurisdicti n over their claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint again alleging
I

defamation against a John Doe defendant. ECF No. 5. For the reaspns discussed below,
plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must ass

e the truth of "all well-

pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiob Iv. Royal Dutch Petroleum

Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). A
complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that 1· s plausible on its face." Bell

At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). It is axiomatic t at prose complaints are held

1

to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and thl Court is required to read
I

the plaintiffs pro se complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it
I

suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed

Plaintiffv. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
DISCUSSION
i

As previously stated in the Court's April 24, 2018 Memoranium and Order, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at

anr time by a party or by the

court sua sponte. 1 See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428,434 (2011)
("[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that the~ do not exceed the scope of
their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties
i

either overlook or elect not to press."). If a court lacks subject mattdr jurisdiction, it must
dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y & H CorJ 546 U.S. 500,514 (2006);
!

Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62-63 (2d
Cir. 2009).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l), the court has subject matter j isdiction over actions
between citizens of different states, where the matter in controversy is more than $75,000.
"[D]iversity jurisdiction is available only when all adverse parties to a litigation are completely
diverse in their citizenships." Herrick Co. v. SCS Commc 'ns, Inc., 2pl F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir.
2001 ). Here, it is still impossible for the Court to determine whethe •complete diversity of
citizenship exists between plaintiffs and the defendant, as plaintiffs ave not alleged the
defendant's domicile or provided any address for the John Doe defe , dant. Plaintiffs' arguments

1

The underlying facts in this case are set forth in the Court's Memorandum and O der, familiarity with which is
assumed. ECF No. 4.

2

•.

that "when a Plaintiff conducts business across the United States and/or around the world, it is
I

more likely that an anonymous internet defendant, when finally identified, will be from a
different State or Country than the Plaintiff," or that they "have a very good idea of who the
anonymous defendant is in the instant case, and such suspected pers0n lives in a different state,"
I

are unavailing. See Am. Compl. at 2.
Furthermore, "[a] party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of
I

I

proving that it appears to a 'reasonable probability' that the claim is rn excess of the statutory
jurisdictional amount." Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am. Nat 'I Bjnk and Trust Co. of

Chicago, 93 F.3d 1064, 1070 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting TongkookAm.llnc. v. Shipton Sportswear

Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994)). Although plaintiffs argue thj their claim is worth
millions of dollars because "Derrick Harris is a notable multi-platinr hip hop music producer,
and ... Tammy Ford is also known as a reputable party promoter id model agency founder,"
Am. Compl. at 5, they still have not met their burden to show there is a "reasonable probability"
they can recover more than or even close to $75,000 in this action t1 meet the statutory
jurisdictional requirement. See Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 93 F.fd at 1070 (a plaintiff must
also show that the amount-in-controversy is non-speculative in order to satisfy the statute).

3

111

•

CONCLUSION

I

Accordingly, the amended complaint is dismissed without pnrjudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment.
Although plaintiffs paid the filing fee to bring this action, the Court jertifies pursuant to 28
U.S. C. § 1915(a)(3) that any in forma pauperis appeal from this ord [ would not be taken in
good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)

s/WFK

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 19, 2018

4