Tshiamala v. Cohen

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 4, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-01642·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OUMAR NGELEKA TSHIAMALA, Plaintiff, 22-CV-1642 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND DR. STEVEN A. COHEN, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Oumar Ngeleka Tshiamala, who resides in France, brings this pro se action asserting a breach-of-contract claim. By order dated March 26, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 of the claims raised. 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). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to

state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this complaint against Dr. Steven A. Cohen, whom Plaintiff alleges “resides

in New York City, U.S.A., 515 Eastern Avenue, Allegan, Michigan, 49010.” (ECF 1 at 1.) The complaint sets forth the following facts. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract providing that Plaintiff would sell to Defendant 2,000 kilograms of pharmaceutical grade sea cucumber. (Id. at 1-2.) On or about September 25, 2020, 500 kilograms of the product, worth $1.6 million, arrived at the Detroit Airport from Douala, Cameroon, but Cohen never paid Plaintiff for that delivery. The remaining 1,500 kilograms of the product, worth $4 million, had been stored at the Douala Airport, but authorities there seized it due to Plaintiff’s inability to pay storage and security fees. (Id. at 2.) Attached to the complaint are documents in French that appear to be copies of text messages, a contract, and other sales documents. (Id. at 3-11.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 2.) DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction The complaint may be understood to assert a state-law breach-of-contract claim brought under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. To establish diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332, a plaintiff must allege that he and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 388 (1998). Diversity of citizenship exists between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). In addition, the plaintiff must allege to a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in excess of the sum or value of $75,000.00, the statutory jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court appears to have diversity jurisdiction of this matter. Plaintiff alleges that the underlying claim satisfies the jurisdictional amount, and that the parties are diverse. It is not clear, however, that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. The

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant and must make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists. See Jonas v. Estate of Leven, 116 F. Supp. 3d 314, 323 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2015) (citing Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34- 35 (2d Cir. 2010)). “Such a showing entails making legally sufficient allegations of jurisdiction, including an averment of facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. at 35. The plaintiff must also “establish the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to each claim asserted.” Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17, 24 (2d Cir. 2004). “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014)). The Court therefore must look to New York State law to evaluate whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tshiamala v. Cohen, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Tshiamala v. Cohen (Tshiamala v. Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
609 F.3d 30 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Rocket Jewelry Box, Inc. v. Noble Gift Packaging, Inc.
869 F. Supp. 152 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray LLP
762 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. New York, 2011)
Daimler AG v. Bauman
134 S. Ct. 746 (Supreme Court, 2014)
Walden v. Fiore
134 S. Ct. 1115 (Supreme Court, 2014)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Rivera-Rosario
300 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
Jonas v. Estate of Leven
116 F. Supp. 3d 314 (S.D. New York, 2015)
United States v. Morales-Madera
352 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2003)