Goldstein v. Capital One Bank USA

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff commenced this case in one of New York City’s small claims courts using a pleading called a “Summons with Endorsed Complaint,” which contains a single sentence that summarily asserts several different claims — but without describing the factual bases for those claims. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2. In the face of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has neither filed an opposition brief nor proposed an amended complaint that attempts to comply with the federal pleading standard in Rule 8. The Court therefore grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 11. However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before December 23, 2022, because he was pro se at the time he filed his original complaint. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff commenced this case by filing a “Summons with Endorsed Complaint” in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff’s pleading contained only the following sentence describing his claims: The nature and the substance of the plaintiff’s cause of action is as follows: Failure to provide proper services for $50,000.00 with interest from 02/09/2021; Failure to issue a refund for $45,108.38 with interest from 02/09/2021; Breach of Contract or Warranty for $50,000.00 with interest from 02/09/2021; Loss of use of property for $50,000.00 with interest from 02/09/2021[.] Id. The pleading warned that if Defendant did not timely respond, then “judgment w[ould] be taken against [it] for the total sum of $195,108.38 and interest.” Id. Defendant timely removed Plaintiff’s suit to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction because Defendant is a citizen of Virginia, Plaintiff is a citizen of New York, and the amount of damages alleged in Plaintiff’s pleading exceeded $75,000. ECF No. 1