Fuerst v. Fuerst
832 F. Supp. 2d 210
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Married in 1967; divorce proceedings initiated in New York in 2008; federal action filed Aug 2010 alleging abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress; settlement executed Sept 1, 2010 releasing claims except divorce-related ones; case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; sanctions motion against plaintiff’s attorney granted in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there subject-matter jurisdiction under §1332(a) | Wolfgang was a US citizen domiciled in Germany; thus diverse from Hannelore. | Diversity fails because Wolfgang’s domicile abroad defeats US-state citizenship; dual citizenship here does not create diversity. | Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; case sua sponte dismissed. |
| Whether to restore and amend the complaint | There was potential to add claims against Adrienne Hausch. | Settlement barred further claims; no jurisdiction to permit amendments. | Denied; no jurisdiction to hear amended/restored claims. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted against plaintiff | Sanctions not appropriate for claims filed before settlement; improper purpose not shown. | Sanctions warranted for failure to withdraw after settlement. | Denied sanctions against plaintiff; order dismissing counterclaims; sanctions denied on this ground. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted against plaintiff's attorney | Attorney failed to withdraw after settlement; improper continuation. | Sanctions granted againstPlaintiff's attorney; awarded reasonable fees/costs incurred in motion practice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004) (state of things at time of action governs diversity; dual citizenship issues)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298 (2d Cir.1994) (court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte; dismissal mandatory if lacking)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (citizenship/domicile required for diversity)
- Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc., 951 F.2d 504 (2d Cir.1991) (duality of citizenship; American citizenship determines diversity in dual-citizen cases)
- FrettSmith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396 (3d Cir.2008) ( discussion of dual citizenship/diversity principles)
- Coury v. Prot., 85 F.3d 244 (5th Cir.1996) (treatment of dual citizenship in diversity context)
- Mutuelles Unies v. Kroll & Linstrom, 957 F.2d 707 (9th Cir.1992) (diversity jurisdiction principles for foreign/domestic parties)
- Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir.1980) (circuit opinions on diversity and domicile)
- Herrick Co., Inc. v. SCS Commc’ns, Inc., 251 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.2001) (domicile considerations for citizenship status)
- Lemos v. Pateras, 5 F.Supp.2d 164 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (diversity when plaintiff is not domiciled in US)
- O’Malley v. New York City Transit Auth., 896 F.2d 704 (2d Cir.1990) (sanctions standard and continuing misfeasance in litigation)
- Stiefvater Real Estate, Inc. v. Hinsdale, 812 F.2d 805 (2d Cir.1987) (Rule 11 sanctions and discretion of the court)