Osei v. Standard Chartered Bank et al
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons herein, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, in its entirety. This Order has no impact on whether Plaintiff may refile his action in state court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/30/2015) (kgo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AKWASI BOAKYE OSEI,
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, et al.,
15 Civ. 03992 (LGS)
OPINION AND ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Plaintiff Akwasi Boakye Osei, appearing pro se, brings this action based on diversity
jurisdiction against Defendants Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”) and Standard Chartered Bank
Ghana Limited (“SCB Ghana”) for, among other things, various tortious acts. For the reasons set
forth below, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Complaint asserts that Defendants wrongfully dishonored eight checks when
Plaintiff’s accounts had enough funds to cover the checks, causing Plaintiff monetary losses and
injury to his credit and business. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff brought an action for
breach of contract, conspiracy and defamation in the Ghana High Court seeking over $40 billion
in damages. The Complaint asserts that Defendants have engaged in various tortious acts in
connection with the Ghanaian court proceedings, such as “manufactur[ing] new fraudulent
documents,” and that the Ghanaian court awarded Plaintiff $14 million in compensatory
damages. Plaintiff brings the instant action, requesting: (1) recognition of the judgment by the
Ghana court; (2) permission to “re-litigate  some of the merits of the Ghana Court Judgment”;
and (3) “[e]xemplary [d]amages” of at least $30 billion against Defendants for conspiracy,
defamation and other tortious acts.
The Complaint alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).1 According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a
“Ghanaian citizen” residing “permanently” in the United States. The Complaint alleges that
SCB “is a public financial services company incorporated and headquartered in the United
Kingdom” and that SCB regularly does business in the State of New York and has a place of
business in New York. The Complaint states that SCB Ghana “is a financial service company
incorporated in Ghana . . . and maintains its principal place of business . . . in . . . Ghana.”
By letter dated June 10, 2015, Defendants requested that the case be dismissed because
“all three parties are aliens and, therefore, diversity jurisdiction is lacking.” Defendants stated
that the Complaint accurately describes Defendants’ places of incorporation and principal places
of business with the clarification that SCB was a company incorporated in England with its
principal place of business in England.
By Order dated June 10, 2015, Plaintiff was given until July 6, 2015, to respond to
Defendants’ letter and warned that the case would likely be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. In a letter dated June 15, 2015, Plaintiff stated that he had been granted “Political
Asylum Status” by the United States, “relocated to the US to reside here permanently” and had
received a notice dated June 4, 2015, from the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Status with his alien number and BCIS file number. By letter dated
June 19, 2015, Plaintiff stated that he is not a U.S. citizen, but rather a Ghanaian citizen currently
in the United States under Political Asylum Status. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Plaintiff
The Complaint incorrectly asserts that jurisdiction is also proper based on Rules 301-02
of the New York Civil Procedure Law and Rules, New York’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money
Judgment Recognition Act and the United Kingdom’s Common Laws.
provided an update on the appeal pending in Ghana but did not address this Court’s subject
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited. Federal
jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when
diversity jurisdiction exists because plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332. “If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);
accord Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter
delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”). When resolving issues
of subject matter jurisdiction, “[a] district court can refer to evidence outside the pleadings and
the plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that it exists.” Luckett v. Bure, 290 F.3d 493, 497 (2d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Federal Question Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, the Complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction, and this
action does not arise under federal law or depend on resolution of questions of federal law.
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases ‘arising under’
federal law.” Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of Bridgeport, 368 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2004). A case
arises under federal law where federal law creates the plaintiff’s cause of action or where “[the]
well-pleaded complaint ‘necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal
law.’” Id. (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28
(1983)). The Complaint seeks confirmation of the Ghana court’s judgment based on New
York’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, but “the enforceability of
foreign court judgments is a matter of state law” and does not confer subject matter jurisdiction
in this case. Mont Blanc Trading Ltd. v. Khan, No. 13 Civ. 700, 2014 WL 1116733, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2014) (collecting cases). The remaining claims in the Complaint are based
on state tort law. Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction.
This action does not satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Diversity of
citizenship is present when the action is between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a
foreign state,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2), or between “citizens of different States and in which
citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties,” id. § 1332(a)(3). “[D]iversity is
lacking within the meaning of these sections where the only parties are foreign entities, or where
on one side there are citizens and aliens and on the opposite side there are only aliens.” Universal
Licensing Corp. v. Paola del Lungo S.p.A., 293 F.3d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 2002) (relying on Romero
v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 381 (1959)).
“[A] corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State or foreign state by which
it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of
business . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Complaint alleges that both
Defendants are incorporated and have principal places of business in foreign countries.
Defendants agree with these factual assertions. Accordingly, Defendants are alien parties under
As Plaintiff is a citizen of Ghana and currently resides in the United States as a political
asylee, this suit is between alien parties. See Tovar v. Indiana, No. 11 Civ. 776, 2011 WL
5423161, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2011) (collecting cases and stating diversity jurisdiction is
absent “where a permanent resident alien appears opposite another alien”); accord Aideyan v.
Greaves, 908 F. Supp. 196, 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (holding that a plaintiff that is “admitted to the
United States as a political asylee” is “an alien” for purposes of § 1332); 13E Charles Alan
Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3604 (3d ed.) (discussing 1988 and 2011
amendments to § 1332(a) regarding citizenship of aliens admitted to the United States and stating
these amendments were not meant to expand the basis for alienage jurisdiction). Accordingly,
diversity of citizenship is lacking.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant SCB is a citizen of a State in the United States because
SCB has at least one office in the New York. This argument is legally incorrect. SCB’s New
York branch office does not affect the jurisdictional analysis. First, “an alien corporation’s
worldwide principal place of business, and not its principal place of business within the United
States is controlling” for jurisdictional purposes. Bailey v. Grand Trunk Lines New England, 805
F.2d 1097, 1101 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 826 (1987).
Second, “even if a corporation organized under the laws of a foreign nation maintains its
principal place of business in a State, and is considered a citizen of that State, diversity is
nonetheless defeated if another alien party is present on the other side of the litigation.”
Franceskin v. Credit Suisse, 214 F.3d 253, 258 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Int'l Shipping Co., S.A. v.
Hydra Offshore, Inc., 875 F.2d 388, 391 (2d Cir. 1989)) (alterations omitted); see also
Creaciones Con Idea, S.A. de C.V. v. Mashreqbank PSC, 232 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2000)
(concluding that diversity was lacking in suit by a Mexican corporation against a corporation
organized under the laws of the United Arab Emirates, even if the defendant’s principal place of
business was in New York). Because there are aliens on both sides of this case, diversity
jurisdiction is lacking.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice, in its
entirety. This Order has no impact on whether Plaintiff may refile his action in state court. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to the
pro se Plaintiff.
Dated: June 30, 2015
New York, New York
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?