Lita v. American Express Co. et al
| Jeton Lita |
| American Express Co., T-Mobile US, Inc., Altice USA, Inc., PSEG Power LLC, Holistic Dental Wellness, Dave's RV Center, Costco Wholesale Corp., Citigroup Inc., Suffolk County Water Authority and Tantillo Auto Group LLC |
| 2:2024cv05216 |
| July 23, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Joan M Azrack |
| Steven Tiscione |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 LETTER dated 9/16/2024 from Clerk's Office to Jeton Lita re Acknowledgment of Civil Action. (LC) |
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Court has reviewed the Complaint (DE #1 ) and in forma pauperis ("IFP") application (DE #2 ) and determined that Plaintiff has established that his financial position as reported in the IFP application qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. Accordingly, the IFP application is GRANTED. This Court has "an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte" Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th 62, 66 (2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the Complaint does not establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate it. See generally DE #1 . The first of two ways to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction, which requires that the "civil action[] aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 1331. But here, Plaintiff does not assert that his claims arise under federal law and, given the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the Court cannot discern a plausible federal claim. Thus, it does not appear that this Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction may not be invoked. The second way to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is diversity jurisdiction, which requires complete diversity among the plaintiffs and defendants and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a); see Tagger v. Strauss Grp. Ltd., 951 F.3d 124, 126 (2d Cir. 2020). "An individual's citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile," or in other words, "the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Relevant to Defendants, a corporation is "deemed to be a citizen of every State and 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), and a limited liability company "takes the citizenship of all of its members." Platinum-Montaur Life Scis., LLC v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 943 F.3d 613, 615 (2d Cir. 2019). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged the citizenship of any party. See DE #1 . And while Plaintiff includes a New York address for himself, it is well-established that "residence alone is insufficient to establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes" Van Buskirk, 935 F.3d at 53; see RainMakers Partners LLC v. NewSpring Cap., LLC, No. 23-899, 2024 WL 1846321, at *2 n.1 (2d Cir. Apr. 29, 2024); Canouse v. Protext Mobility, Inc., No. 22-1335-CV, 2023 WL 3490915, at *1 (2d Cir. May 17, 2023). The second requirement of diversity jurisdiction--an amount in controversy of at least $75,000--is equally important. "[A] plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied." Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216, 223 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff, however, has not demonstrated that there is at least $75,000 in controversy. Indeed, Plaintiff does not include a demand for monetary damages in this action. See DE #1 at 8.Given the above-described deficiencies, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing by 9/30/2024 why this Court should not dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc., 96 F.4th 106, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2024). Facts showing diversity jurisdiction (diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy) must be established by sworn affidavit. In addition, Plaintiff's motion seeking electronic case filing privileges (DE #3 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave to renew if circumstances so warrant. A review of the docket reflects that Plaintiff's submissions have been promptly uploaded to the docket and Plaintiff may mail his submissions to the Court if his travel plans as recited in the application prohibit him from appearing at the clerk's office in person.The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 9/4/2024. (CB) Modified on 9/5/2024 to edit text to add the slash (/) to the date 9/30/2024 as requested by JMA Chambers. (CV). Modified on 9/5/2024 (CV).
|
| Filing 6 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (LF) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Related Case: 24cv2714-JMA-ST; 24cv4998-JMA-ST The Case was directly assigned as a related Pro Se/Habeas Case. (LF) |
| Filing 4 Pro Se Consent to Electronic Notification by Jeton Lita. (LF) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for leave to allow Pro Se to Electronically File by Jeton Lita. (LF) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jeton Lita. (LF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Altice USA, Inc., American Express Co., Citigroup Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Dave's RV Center, Holistic Dental Wellness, PSEG Power LLC, Suffolk County Water Authority, T-Mobile US, Inc., Tantillo Auto Group LLC Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Jeton Lita. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (LF) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
