Ramani v. YouTube LLC

Filing 19

ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is directed to file a declaration within thirty days of the date of this order showing why the Court should no t abstain from presiding over this state-court matter and why this Court is the proper venue. A declaration form is attached to this order. If Plaintiff timely files a declaration, the Court shall review it, and if proper, shall direct the Cle rk of Court to effect service on Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the action will be dismissed. No summons shall be issued at this time. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 -45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 7/8/2019) (mro) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VALMIKI RAMANI,
Plaintiff,
-against-

17-CV-5746 (CM)
ORDER

YOUTUBE LLC,
Defendant.
COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, bring this action alleging that YouTube removed or stole his
videos from his YouTube channel. He also asserts that YouTube has discriminated against him.
By order dated June 3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment
of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court directs Plaintiff to show
cause why this Court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also
dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret
them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
original).

BACKGROUND
A.

Procedural History
Plaintiff filed this action on July 28, 2017. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a letter

requesting to withdraw the action, “because [he] is trying to enter an agreement with [the
defendants] which would alleviate the problems mentioned in [his] complaint[ ].” (ECF No. 4.)
The Court then dismissed the complaint without prejudice. (Order dated Sept. 11, 2017, ECF No.
5.) Approximately two years later, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the action, stating that “the
defendant continues their discrimination and harassment despite [the fact that he had] entered
their partnership program.” (ECF No. 7.) On October 13, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a letter where
he requested that the letter be “included with the supporting documents already submitted as
‘Discovery.’” (ECF No. 8.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reopen and directed Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order, incorporating all of his
allegations into one submission. (Order dated Nov. 15, 2017, ECF No. 9.) The Court warned
Plaintiff that if he failed to comply within the time allowed, the complaint would be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.)
After Plaintiff failed to file the amended complaint, the Court dismissed the action for
failure to state a claim. (Order dated Jan. 11, 2018, ECF No. 10.)
Plaintiff filed a letter seeking to reopen the case, stating that he never received the
November 15, 2017 order reopening the matter. 1 (Letter dated Jan. 24, 2018, ECF No. 12.)
On February 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 13.)

1

This letter was docketed on the date it was received, but the Court did not learn of it
until May of this year.
2

The Court granted Plaintiff’s January 24, 2018 request and reopened the action. (Order
dated May 2, 2019, ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Order dated May 22,
2019, ECF No. 15.) On May 30, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed the appeal. See Ramani v. YouTube LLC, No. 19-315 (2d Cir.).
B.

Factual Background
The following facts are taken from the 211-page amended complaint: Plaintiff, who is a

resident of Queens County, New York, maintains a YouTube channel. YouTube, which is
headquartered in California, removed or stole Plaintiff’s videos from his channel for unspecified,
discriminatory reasons. Though Plaintiff initiated this action in 2017, YouTube convinced him
not to pursue legal action. Then, sometime in 2018, Plaintiff initiated a state court action in New
York Supreme Court, Queens County. See Ramani v. YouTube, LLC, No. 0005821/2018 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty.).
In the state-court matter, Plaintiff alleges that YouTube breached an agreement to
“monetize [his] videos by allowing advertising to be show[n] on the videos.” (Compl. at 34.)
And he seeks a court order directing YouTube to immediately stop the purging of [his] work on
their media, to put all 400 (plus) of [his] videos on [his] channel access (2), and granting of all
monetary compensation asked for and any other the court deem fit.” (Compl. at 103, quoting
from May 6, 2019 affidavit). During the litigation of this state-court case, “YouTube . . . hacked
into [Plaintiff’s] computer on April 9th while [he] was in court and took all [his] email.” (Id. at
7.)
For reasons that are unclear, Plaintiff recently resurrected this closed federal action by
filing a 211-page submission. But this submission primarily consists of copies of papers filed in
the state-court litigation; he also attaches papers from a California action he brought against
YouTube in 2018. (Id. at 64.)
3

DISCUSSION
A.

Federal courts may abstain from exercising jurisdiction over an action that raises
claims that are being litigated in state court
Generally, “the pendency of an action in state court is no bar to proceedings concerning

the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction.” Colorado River Water Conservation
Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Federal courts must exercise jurisdiction unless
“exceptional circumstances” weigh in favor of abstention. Am. Disposal Serv., Inc. v. O’Brien,
839 F.2d 84, 87 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
460 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1983)).
In evaluating whether abstention is appropriate, federal district courts consider six
factors:
(1) whether the controversy involves a res [property] over which one of the courts
has assumed jurisdiction; (2) whether the federal forum is less inconvenient than
the other for the parties; (3) whether staying or dismissing the federal action will
avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the actions were filed . . . and
whether proceedings have advanced more in one forum than in the other;
(5) whether federal law provides the rule of decision; and (6) whether the state
procedures are adequate to protect the plaintiff’s federal rights.
Woodford v. Community Action Agency of Greene Cnty., Inc., 239 F.3d 517, 522 (2d Cir. 2001).
The Court is inclined to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action because
(1) it raises similar claims to those that are pending in New York Supreme Court, Queens
County, and not abstaining could result in piecemeal litigation; (2) Plaintiff chose to pursue this
action in state court, even though he first initiated it in this Court, and the state-court action has
advanced well beyond the stage of litigation in this Court; (3) it raises state-law claims that do
not involve any federal issues; and (4) to the extent Plaintiff also seeks to raise a
“discrimination” claim, the state court can adequately protect any federal right associated with

4

this alleged discrimination, which arises out of the same set of facts as the breach-of-contract
claim.
And while the first factor is the only factor arguably weighing in favor of not abstaining,
see Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist., 673 F.3d 84,
101 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that because “there is no property or res at issue here . . . [t]his factor
therefore weighs against abstention”) (internal alterations omitted; alteration added), this factor
alone is insufficient to justify the Court’s exercising jurisdiction over this matter, see Colorado
River Water Conservation Dist., 424 U.S. at 818-19 (explaining that none of the factors are alone
“determinative . . . [and that] a carefully considered judgment taking into account both the
obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that
exercise is required”).
B.

The Court directs Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not abstain from
exercising jurisdiction over this matter
The Court therefore directs Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of this order, to show

cause why the Court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this action. In so doing,
he should assert facts in support of his “discrimination” claim, explaining: whether he raised this
claim in the state court proceeding; why any federal right cannot be protected in the state court
action; and why he brings this action here given that he already is litigating the matter in state
court.
C.

The Court also directs Plaintiff to show cause why this District is the proper venue
for this action
Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in:
a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of
the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ;
or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as

5

provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to
the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the
person is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). And an entity that is not a person, “whether or not
incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in
question.” § 1391(c)(2).
Plaintiff, who is a Queens resident, filed this complaint against YouTube, a California
corporation, asserting claims of breach of contract and “discrimination.” He does not assert any
facts suggesting that this Court is the proper venue. The Court therefore directs Plaintiff to show
cause why this District is the proper venue for this action.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service
on the docket. Plaintiff is directed to file a declaration within thirty days of the date of this order
showing why the Court should not abstain from presiding over this state-court matter and why
this Court is the proper venue. A declaration form is attached to this order. If Plaintiff timely files
a declaration, the Court shall review it, and if proper, shall direct the Clerk of Court to effect
service on Defendant. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, and
cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the action will be dismissed. No summons shall
be issued at this time.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).

6

The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a “written opinion” within the meaning of
Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 8, 2019
New York, New York
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge

7

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN D ISTRICT OF N EW Y ORK

Write the first and last name of each plaintiff or
petitioner.
Case No.

CV

-against-

Write the first and last name of each defendant or
respondent.

DECLARATION

Briefly explain above the purpose of the declaration, for example, “in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment,” or “in Response to Order to Show Cause.”
I,

, declare under penalty of perjury that the

following facts are true and correct:
In the space below, describe any facts that are relevant to the motion or that respond to a court
order. You may also refer to and attach any relevant documents.

Rev. 10/3/16

Attach additional pages and documents if necessary.

Executed on (date)

Signature

Name

Prison Identification # (if incarcerated)

Address
Telephone Number (if available)

City

State

Zip Code

E-mail Address (if available)

Page 2