District Court, S.D. Illinois, 2023

Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa

Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa
District Court, S.D. Illinois · Decided October 3, 2023
Tsukerman v. Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MIKHAIL S. TSUKERMAN. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-2666-SMY ) LAW FIRM OF BECKER, HOERNER & ) YSURSA and THOMAS J. HUNTER, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YANDLE, District Judge: Plaintiff Mikhail S. Tsukerman filed this pro se action against the Law Firm of Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa and Thomas Hunter. On January 10, 2023, the Court denied Tsukerman’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. 2) and dismissed his Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Tsukerman moved for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 12) and reconsideration (Doc. 13), which the Court denied (Doc. 14).

He now moves the Court to reconsider and to permit the filing of a second amended complaint (Docs. 15, 16).

Tsukerman’s proposed second amended complaint contains the same deficiencies as his original and proposed amended complaints. To proceed in federal court, Tsukerman must establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily accomplished through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He has not met this burden – he cannot assert Monell claims against the named defendants, a private law firm with no connection to the state and a private citizen. See Hallinan v. Fraternal Ord. of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2009).

Tsukerman’s remaining claims are state law claims, and this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor has Tsukerman alleged diversity jurisdiction. “[T]he diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, requires complete diversity.” Big Shoulders Capital LLC v. San Luis & Rio Grande R.R., Inc., 13 F.4th 560, 571 (7th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 15) and Motion for Leave (Doc. 16) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2023 Now KU. Coll STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.