Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Int'l PLC (Nov. 6, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
HABIB MIAH v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Nov. 6, 2025
Disposition
Dismissed
HABIB MIAH, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO...., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3097414Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. New York.HABIB MIAH, Plaintiff,v.MORGAN STANLEY & CO.INTERNATIONAL PLC, et al., Defendants.25 Civ. 1208 (PAE) (HJR)|Filed 11/06/2025Attorneys and Law FirmsHabib Miah, London, UK, Pro Se.Ashley Jean Hale, Sam Scott Shaulson, Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.OPINION & ORDERPAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge*1 Plaintiff Habib Miah, proceeding pro se, brings thisaction against defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. InternationalPLC (“Morgan Stanley”) and Eaton Vance ManagementInternational Ltd (collectively, “defendants”), alleging thatthe defendants improperly withdrew his offer of employment.Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). Miah's claims include breach ofcontract, corporate negligence, and reputational harm. Id.Currently pending are defendants’ motion to dismiss theComplaint, Dkt. 30, and Miah's motion for leave to amendthe Complaint, Dkt. 74. Before the Court is the September30, 2025 Report and Recommendation of United StatesMagistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo. Dkt. 90 (the “Report”).The Report recommends that the Court grant defendants’motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,on the ground that both Miah and Morgan Stanley arealiens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, thereby defeatingsuch jurisdiction. It further recommends that the Court denyMiah leave to amend. Id. On October 11, 2025, Miahfiled objections to the Report under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 72(b), a motion to shift the evidentiary burdenand conduct jurisdictional discovery, and a motion to applyunconsidered legal tests. Dkts. 91–92. On October 30, 2025,defendants filed their response to these objections. Dkt. 93.On November 5, 2025, without leave of the Court, Miah filedfurther objections. Dkt. 95.The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the factsprovided in the Report. For the following reasons, the Courtadopts the recommendation of the Report in full.DISCUSSIONIn reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, thefindings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party may serve and file writtenobjections to a magistrate judge's report within 14 days ofbeing served with a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Aparty may respond to another party's objections within 14days of being served with a copy. Id. There is no further rightto reply, under the statute, following a party's response toanother party's objections.“To accept those portions of the report to which no timelyobjection has been made, a district court need only satisfyitself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950, 2014 WL 4635575,at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner,No. 2 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,2009)). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although thereis evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entireevidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that amistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. GypsumCo., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). When specific objections aremade, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any partof the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properlyobjected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. MaleJuvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1997). When an objectionrefers the Court to previously filed papers or arguments,however, it is deemed “devoid of any reference to specificfindings” and “unsupported by legal authority.” Mario v. P &C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). Suchstatements do “not constitute an adequate objection undereither Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) or Local Civil Rule 72.3(a)(3),”and are reviewed for clear error. Id.*2 Miah's objection is subject to clear error review. TheSecond Circuit has held that such review is warranted whereno “adequate objection” to the Report has been made. Id.Such is the case here.1 In objecting to the Report, Miahprimarily directs the Court to prior filings that he claims show
HABIB MIAH, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO...., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2his entitlement to jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. 92 at 2–3.But his objections do not refer to any specific finding or tosupporting legal authority. Id. at 4 (citing Dkts. 38, 44, 46,55, 64, 74–76). On the contrary, in his prior filings, and nowin his objections, Miah has acknowledged the decisive legalproposition cited by the Report: that “aliens on both sides ofthe ‘v.’ destroy diversity.” Id.; Dkt. 65 at 1–2 (“Only MorganStanley & Co. International PLC and Morgan Stanley UKLtd share Plaintiff's foreign citizenship.”). And Miah doesnot dispute the facts establishing the lack of jurisdiction: that,as the Report found, he is an alien and that the same is sofor defendant Morgan Stanley. See Report at 7. Rather, Miahnotes that at least one alien defendant might also possess non-alien citizenship—a fact which, he asserts, might have beenrevealed by jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. 92 at 10.Careful review of Judge Ricardo's thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions;the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. In reviewingthe record, the Court is not “left with the definite and firmconviction that a mistake has been committed.” U.S. GypsumCo., 333 U.S. at 395. To the contrary, the Report expresslycontemplated and rejected the arguments raised in Miah'sobjections. It observed “[t]here must be complete diversityof citizenship, which means that because Miah is an alien,the presence of any other alien as a defendant destroysdiversity. Merely adding a non-alien defendant— assumingthat EV International is not an alien—cannot create diversityjurisdiction.” Report at 8.Finally, the Court concludes that Miah has not made asubstantial showing of a denial of a federal right, and appellatereview is therefore not warranted. See Love v. McCray, 413F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court certifies, pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order wouldnot be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperisstatus is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v.United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants’motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction anddenies plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Complaint.The dismissal is without prejudice to Miah's right to pursuehis claims in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Courtrespectfully directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decisionto plaintiff at the address on file.SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 3097414Footnotes1The Court observes that Miah's latest objection, Dkt. 95, was filed over a month after the Report and afterdefendants’ reply and is, therefore, not properly before the Court under Rule 72(b). As to Miah's objectionof October 11, 2025, defendants highlight Miah's troubling apparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) in thisfiling, including citations to cases that do not exist and quotations that do not appear in the authorities cited.See, e.g., Dkt. 93 at 4 (identifying a citation to a decision from the Eastern District of New York that does notexist). Miah's use of AI appears to have begun as early as his first filing. The Complaint included apparentcommentary from an AI platform in response to Miah's prompts. Complaint at 14 (“Let me know if you'd likeme to expand further or draft additional sections!”) (emphases added).End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access