United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
ALEX F. ISAAC, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
FERNANDO ABAD, Defendant.
F. Isaac, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge.
10, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order (Docket
No. 7) dismissing all claims of one plaintiff, Para Sports &
Entertainment ("PSE"), for the reasons stated
therein. Further, this Court directed the remaining
plaintiff, Alex F. Isaac ("Isaac"), to file an
Amended Complaint within 35 days setting forth plausible
claims upon which relief may be granted based on alleged
wrongdoings to him and not to PSE. As an additional matter,
this Court questioned whether it had diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1332(a)(2) in view of the dismissal
of PSE's claims, and thus directed Isaac to demonstrate a
good faith basis for asserting that the amount in
controversy, based on his individual claims, exceeded $75,
14, 2016, Isaac filed a self-prepared "Motion for
Judgement Against Defendand [sic] Fernando Abad" (Docket
No. 9)("Motion for Judgment"). In that motion,
Isaac essentially reiterates his claims in the Complaint,
albeit with some modifications. He alleges that the defendant
borrowed $20, 000.00 from PSE through a third party lender.
Thereafter, defendant borrowed $5, 000.00 and Isaac's
personal credit card was used to secure an apartment for the
defendant's spring training in Florida. Isaac alleges
that the defendant agreed to reimburse him for travel and
living expenses since Isaac had covered those costs up-front,
making the total expenses owed of $9, 100.00. Thereafter, as
previously alleged in the Complaint, the defendant denied
having knowledge of the loan and claimed that Isaac owed the
defendant $10, 518.88. Isaac alleges that a few weeks later,
most of his clients left him and signed on with other agents,
allegedly because of conversations they had with the
defendant and the Major League Baseball Player Association.
He claims the defendant defamed his character by spreading
vicious rumors concerning "our" business practices.
Motion for Judgment (Docket No. 9 at Â¶ 4).
initial matter, Isaac has failed to file an Amended Complaint
as directed. Notably, Isaac initiated this action as a Motion
for Judgment, which this Court construed as his Complaint.
See Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 4 at 2). Even if this
Court were to construe his recent Motion for Judgment as his
Amended Complaint, it still is legally deficient. This Court
directed Isaac to set forth only his personal claims;
however, in his Motion for Judgment, Isaac fails to delineate
clearly which of his claims belong to him and which of his
claims belong to PSE. For instance, he indicates that PSE
arranged for the $20, 000.00 loan for the defendant, but it
is unclear whether he or PSE lent the defendant $5, 000.00
thereafter. It is also unclear whether Isaac's actions in
fronting travel and living expenses for the defendant was
made by him in his personal capacity or on behalf of the
company. If Isaac was acting as PSE's agent (as appears
to be the case), the claims for reimbursement inure to PSE
and not to him personally. As this Court noted previously,
Isaac cannot assert claims on behalf of his company unless
the claims are presented in this Court through a
although Isaac alleges that some of his clients have left
"him" due to the defendant's defamation of his
business practices, it reasonably can be presumed that the
clients have left the agency (PSE) and not Isaac personally.
Thus, Isaac again appears to assert claims belonging to PSE.
to the extent that Isaac asserts that he has been defamed (as
opposed to PSE), he has failed to set forth plausible
defamation claims in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to
include in the complaint, inter alia, "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This
statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what
the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,
'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 47 (1957)); see Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d
27, 33 (1st Cir. 2005). It must afford the defendant(s) a
"meaningful opportunity to mount a defense,
'" DÃaz-Rivera v. Rivera-RodrÃguez, 377
F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2004)(quoting RodrÃguez v. Doral
Mortgage Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir. 1995)).
"In a civil rights action as in any other action..., the
complaint should at least set forth minimal facts as to who
did what to whom, when, where, and why." Educadores
PuertorriqueÃ±os en AcciÃ³n v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61,
68 (1st Cir. 2004).
Isaac fails to set forth any underlying factual information
in support of his allegations that would give the defendant
sufficient notice of his claims and the grounds upon which
they are based. Generally, this Court would afford a
plaintiff an opportunity to further amend a deficient
complaint; however, in this case, there is no need to do so,
in light of the jurisdictional impediment presented.
Specifically, Isaac was directed to demonstrate the diversity
jurisdiction of this Court by showing that his amount in
controversy exceeded $75, 000.00. On this record, this Court
cannot find that Isaac has sufficiently met his burden.
for the failure of Isaac to comply with this Court's
directives, and for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
Isaac's Motion for Judgment (Docket No. 9) is DENIED and