Magistrate Judge Steven Locke

Read Full-Text Decision

From 2011 to 2014 New York resident Nastasi was romantically involved with California resident Lari. His diversity suit asserting contract breach and tort alleged Lari’s affection for him was a confidence scheme to gain access to his assets and wealth. On Oct. 4, 2017 Nastasi renewed his motion to amend his complaint to charge the Florida-resident Piwkos, Lari’s parents, with unjust enrichment. In addition to claiming Lari sought a $250,000 loan from him to buy a new house for her parents, Nastasi claimed Lari gave them $35,000 from $50,000 he had loaned to Lari. The court denied Nastasi’s amendment motion as futile, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the Piwkos. The $35,000 amount in controversy was below the $75,000 diversity jurisdiction threshold. Nor was there any assertion that the Piwkos were jointly liable for any damages attributed to Lari beyond the $35,000 she allegedly transferred to them. Even if the threshold amount were met, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Piwkos. Because the cause of action asserted against them did not constitute a tortious act, §302(a)(2) and (3) of New York’s long-arm statute did not provide any basis to assert personal jurisdiction over the Piwkos.