Godlewski v. Alvear Gonzalez, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP GODLEWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDUARDO NICOLAS ALVEAR
GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00344
(SAPORITO, J.)
MEMORANDUM
On February 28, 2024, the plaintiff Philip Godlewski filed this
action against the defendants for what he calls a “relentless smear
campaign of libel [that] continues daily on all media fronts, causing
irreparable harm to Plaintiff ’s reputation, impugning his credibility,
[and] causing him and his family severe emotional distress.” (Doc. 22, ¶
7).1 He brings six counts against the defendants: (1) defamation by
imputation of crimes never committed by the plaintiff; (2) false light
invasion of privacy; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4)
tortious interference with contracts, prospective contracts, and business
1 The language is taken from the operative complaint, an amended
complaint filed on April 25, 2024.
Case 3:24-cv-00344-JFS Document 55 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
relationships; (5) defamation by innuendo; and (6) defamation per se. On
May 10, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff ’s claims
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the
alternative, under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 26). The motion has been
briefed by the parties (Doc. 27; Doc. 28; Doc. 29; Doc. 31; Doc. 33; Doc.
34), and on January 23, 2025, we held oral argument regarding the
matter.2 The matter is now ripe for review.
Before we analyze the merits of the defendants’ motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), however, we must first determine whether we have
jurisdiction over this matter. The United States Code provides that “[t]he
district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and is between – citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). The defendants argue that the plaintiff cannot establish
2 The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on May 10, 2024. This
action was assigned to the undersigned on December 10, 2024. We held
oral argument regarding the matter on January 23, 2025. On February
4, 	2025, 	we 	stayed 	this 	action 	pending 	the 	outcome 	of 	settlement
discussions. (Doc. 43). The parties, however, were unable to settle the
matter, and on October 2, 2025, we lifted the stay. (Doc. 53).
Case 3:24-cv-00344-JFS Document 55 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 to establish subject
matter jurisdiction, thereby necessitating dismissal of the complaint.
Specifically, they state that the plaintiff ’s allegations of harm are “too
vague and speculative, involving only possible future losses.” (Doc. 27, at
29).
Upon review of the complaint, we agree with the defendants,
finding that the plaintiff ’s allegations of damages are insufficiently
detailed to plausibly allege that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
See Lapaglia v. Transamerica Cas.
Ins. Co., 155 F. Supp. 3d 153, 155 (D. Conn. 2016) (finding that the
Iqbal-
Twombly plausibility requirement “govern[s] the evaluation of factual
allegations that support federal subject matter jurisdiction, such as to
evaluate facts alleged concerning an amount in controversy for purposes
of federal diversity jurisdiction”) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009), and
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007));
see
also Turban v. Bar Giacosa Corp., No. 19-CV-1138, 2019 WL 3495947, at
*2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2019);
Penrod v. K&N Eng’g, Inc., No. 18-CV-
02907, 2019 WL 1958652, at *3 (D. Minn. May 2, 2019). But a complaint
may, with the permission of the court, be amended to show jurisdictional
Case 3:24-cv-00344-JFS Document 55 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
facts.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1653;
Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas.
& Sur. Co., 177 F.3d 210, 222 n.13 (3d Cir. 1999). Therefore, under the
circumstances presented, we find it appropriate to grant the plaintiff
leave to file a second amended complaint that attempts to cure the
jurisdictional pleading defects identified above.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted and
the amended complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The plaintiff, however, will be granted leave to file a second
amended complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
An appropriate order follows.3
Dated: March 4, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
3 	In light of our finding, we need not 	address the remaining
contentions contained in the defendants’ motion. As the Third Circuit has
succinctly stated, “[i]f a District Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction, it must dismiss.”
Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 242 n.6 (3d
Cir. 2009). We apply that standard here.
Case 3:24-cv-00344-JFS Document 55 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 4