Freeman v. Jacobson

AARON FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. TREVOR JACOBSON and JORDAN USDIN, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-10040 (SN)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 13, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

SARAH NETBURN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Aaron Freeman (“Freeman”) sued Trevor Jacobson (“Jacobson”) and Jordan Usdin (“Usdin ” and collectively, “Defendants”) for wrongful conversion of stocks, assault, and the theft of his dog. See generally ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl”). Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, that venue is improper, that Freeman's claims are time-barred, and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

Freeman and Jacobson were in a romantic relationship and lived together in New York City from August 2002 to December 2015. “Compl.” at ¶ 7. In late 2016, Jacobson and Usdin became involved in a romantic relationship and currently reside together in New York City. Id. ¶ 9-11. In February 2019, Freeman moved to California and currently resides there. Id. ¶ 12.

A. The Match Group Stock Shares

In November of 2015, Jacobson's employer offered him the opportunity to purchase 300 shares of stock in Match Group, Inc., for $3, 600. Id. ¶ 13, 16. Freeman and Jacobson agreed to purchase the shares, with each contributing half of the purchase price. Id. ¶ 15, 16. The shares were purchased in Jacobson's name and placed into a J.P. Morgan account arranged by Jacobson's employer. Id. ¶ 17. Freeman and Jacobson agreed to hold the shares in the J.P Morgan account to allow the shares to appreciate. Id. Upon Jacobson's promises, Freeman believed half of the shares belonged to him and would be given to him if he requested. Id. ¶ 18. Jacobson also acknowledged Freeman's right to half of the shares through words and deeds. Id. ¶ 20. When their relationship ended, they agreed to continue holding the shares in Jacobson's J.P. Morgan account. Id. ¶ 19.

In July and December of 2018, Freeman asked Jacobson to transfer his half of the shares to him. Id. ¶ 21. On both occasions, Jacobson agreed to comply with Freeman's request, but he did not transfer the shares. Id. In June 2019, Jacobson informed Freeman that he would transfer the shares from his J.P. Morgan account to his personal account “as the first step of gifting them to Freeman, ” however, Jacobson never completed the transfer to Freeman. Id. ¶ 22, 23. Freeman continued to inquire about his shares, which Jacobson ignored. Id. ¶ 23. In January 2020, Jacobson told a mutual friend that Freeman would have to sue him if he wanted his shares. Id. To date, the shares are worth approximately $20, 000, and Freeman alleges that Jacobson's refusal to transfer the shares has caused him financial damages and emotional distress. Id. ¶ 26, 27.

B. Saylor, the Pet Dog

In March 2010, when Freeman and Jacobson were together, Freeman adopted Saylor, a mixed-breed male dog. Id. ¶ 28. Freeman is listed as Saylor's owner in the adoption paperwork with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and on Saylor's microchip registration. Id. ¶ 28-30. Freeman also paid for all of Saylor's licensing fees. Id. ¶ 29.

Freeman became Saylor's primary caretaker in January 2016, when Jacobson moved out of their apartment, but both agreed to share custody of the dog. Id. ¶ 31, 33. The parties alternated one-and-two-week periods with Saylor. Id. ¶ 33. Jacobson paid for Saylor's daily needs on his weeks, and for half of his crating and veterinary expenses. Id. Freeman and Jacobson followed this arrangement amicably until May 2019. Id.

In December 2018, Jacobson agreed to take care of Saylor while Freeman relocated to California. Id. ¶ 34. Both parties agreed that Jacobson would have Saylor for the first half of 2019, and Freeman would have Saylor for the second half. Id. Once in California, Freeman texted Jacobson about picking up Saylor, but he did not respond. Id. ¶ 35. On May 20, 2019, Freeman called Jacobson to discuss bringing Saylor to California, but Jacobson responded that he would not give Saylor back and intended to keep him. Id. ¶ 36. After this conversation, Freeman continuously reached out to Jacobson about bringing Saylor to California and, eventually, Jacobson agreed to allow Freeman to take Saylor in September. Id. ¶ 37. Jacobson reneged on their agreement, however, refusing to return Saylor and threatening to hide him in an unknown location in New Jersey. Id. ¶ 39. In response to an email by Freeman, Jacobson wrote that he was not prepared to allow Freeman to take Saylor to California. Id. ¶ 42. Realizing that Jacobson would not return Saylor to him, Freeman pretended to acquiesce. Id. ¶ 44.

In October 2019, Freeman picked up Saylor for what he claimed was a weekend trip, but instead took him to California. Id. ¶ 45. After Freeman informed Jacobson that Saylor was in California, Jacobson accused Freeman of “stealing” Saylor, demanded that he return the dog, and threatened to hurt Freeman and have him arrested. Id. ¶ 46-48. These threats frightened Freeman and caused him to fear for his personal safety. Id. ¶ 49.

On the morning of October 24, 2019, Freeman was walking Saylor when he was approached by an unknown man, who grabbed him and threatened to hurt him or Saylor if he tried to do anything. Id. ¶ 51-52. Freeman felt a hard object pressed against his side, which he believed was a gun, and thought he was being mugged. Id. ¶ 52. As the unknown man restrained him, another man emerged from a parked car, unleashed Saylor, and carried the dog to the car. Id. ¶ 53. Freeman tried to retrieve Saylor by chasing after the man, but again the unknown man threatened to hurt him and Saylor. Id. ¶ 54-55. When the unknown man pulled Freeman away from the car, Freeman recognized Usdin as the man who carried Saylor away. Id. ¶ 55. Freeman alleges that security footage from a nearby apartment shows the incident in its entirety. Id. ¶ 59. Freeman never consented to Usdin taking Saylor. Id. ¶ 58.

During the incident, Freeman alleges that Jacobson hacked into his cell phone account, changed the passcode, and ended his service to prevent him from seeking help. Id. ¶ 60-61. After the incident, Freeman attempted to file a police report against Usdin and the unknown man with the LAPD's North Hollywood precinct. Id. ¶ 62. He was informed, however, that Jacobson had presented documents that claimed he owned Saylor and had filed a complaint against Freeman for theft. Id. The following day, Freeman filed a report with the LAPD's Van Nuys precinct. Id. ¶ 63. The officers advised him to file a civil lawsuit because they lacked the authority to travel to New York and make an arrest. Id. In January 2020, Jacobson told a mutual friend that Freeman must sue him if he wanted Saylor back. Id. ¶ 70.

Freeman claims that Jacobson-through Usdin's aiding and abetting-has had wrongful possession of Saylor since October 24, 2019. Id. ¶ 65. Freeman also alleges that Jacobson planned, directed, and paid for Usdin to travel to California to assault Freeman and steal Saylor, and that the unknown man was hired by Usdin to assist him. Id. ¶ 56-57. Lastly, Freeman alleges that the Defendants' wrongful conduct caused him to suffer severe emotional distress and that they knew or acted with the probability that their conduct would cause such distress. Id. ¶ 67-68.

II. Procedural Background

Freeman filed his Complaint on December 1, 2020. The Honorable Gregory H. Woods issued an Order to Show Cause sua sponte, requiring Freeman to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75, 000, which Freeman did. See ECF Nos. 7, 8. On January 27, 2021, the parties consented to my jurisdiction for all further proceedings. See ECF No. 28. On February 4, 2021, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss, which the Plaintiff opposed. ECF Nos. 31, 37, 38.

DISCUSSION

The Defendants move to dismiss for (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) forum non conveniens, (3) time-barred claims, and (4) failure to state a claim.

I. Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In his Complaint, Freeman invokes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity of the parties and damages above $75, 000. Defendants claim that Freeman cannot prove the necessary amount of damages, and therefore the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

A. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) governs motions to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). “When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 5 12(b)(1), the court must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiff” Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80, 83 (2d. Cir. 2000).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, subject-matter jurisdiction exists when a case involves parties who are citizens of different states and an amount in controversy that exceeds $75, 000. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must demonstrate “a ‘reasonable probability' that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.” Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216, 223 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing Tongkook Am,, Inc. v. Shipton Sportwear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994)).

Although there is a “presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith representation of the amount in controversy ” a defendant may rebut this presumption. Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wolde-Meskel v. Vocational Instruction Project Cmty. Servs, Inc., 166 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 1999)). To prevail, a defendant must show to a ...