Handsman et al v. Prayz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-60533-VALLE
IVY BETH HANDSMAN and
MICHAEL MICALIZZI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANJAMIN PRAYZ,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Benjamin Prayz’s (“Defendant”) Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) (the “Motion”). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11, the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge was randomly assigned as the presiding Judge for all
purposes in this case, including entering a dispositive order, presiding over any trial, and entering
a final judgment.1 See (ECF No. 19).
Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response (ECF No. 33), Defendant’s Reply
(ECF No. 34), and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
the Motion is GRANTED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 13, 2025, pro se Plaintiffs Ivy Beth Handsman and Michael Micalizzi
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant and his then attorney Craig Dearr in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging fraud in the administration of the
1 The parties did not request reassignment of the case to a District Judge.
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 1 of 8

2
parties’ deceased mother and stepfather’s estates, which were probated in Broward County,
Florida. See generally (ECF No. 1). Defendant Dearr moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim. See generally (ECF No. 8).
The District Court in Massachusetts granted Dearr’s motion, noting that Plaintiffs “ha[d] now
received [the] property due to them[] [and] because any independent injury associated with the
delay presumably would have been felt in Connecticut, where plaintiffs live, or in Florida, where
the alleged actions occurred, there is no basis to exert personal jurisdiction over Dearr in
Massachusetts.” (ECF No. 11). Defendant Prayz (the sole remaining defendant) then filed a
motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida, which the Court granted. See
(ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17).
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. See (ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23). In the
Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant attempted
to defraud Plaintiffs in the distribution of the two estates. See generally (ECF No. 24) (the
“Amend. Compl.”). In part, the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Handsman and
Defendant entered into a contract in which Defendant, as personal representative of the mother’s
estate, agreed to distribute to Plaintiff Handsman certain jewelry and photos (the “Property”) from
the estate. Amend. Compl., Part III, ¶ 2. Plaintiffs claim that during the probate proceedings,
Defendant attempted on multiple occasions to coerce Plaintiff Handsman to close her mother’s
estate (and subsequently her stepfather’s estate), prior to the distribution of the estates’ assets to
Plaintiff Handsman. Id. ¶¶ 5-12.
As a result, in April 2024, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Defendant in Suffolk County
Superior Court. Id. ¶ 14. Shortly after being served the summons, Defendant delivered the
Property to Plaintiff Handsman. Id. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Handsman sought to keep the case
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 2 of 8

3
open “to seek punitive damages,” but the court dismissed the case in December 2024. Id. ¶¶ 14-
15.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant, alleging a scheme with
intent to defraud Plaintiffs of their inheritance through administration of the two estates. The case
was transferred to the Southern District of Florida in March 2025. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17).
In the instant Motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See generally
(ECF No. 32).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Pleadings by Pro Se Litigants
Pleadings by pro se litigants “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
an attorney and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” James v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. 23-
CV-13039, 2024 WL 1509682, at *2 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United
States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)); see also Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 734 F. App’x
688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Liberal construction, in more concrete terms, means that federal courts
must sometimes look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s complaint and focus on the content
and substance of the allegations.”). This leniency, however, does not give the Court “license to
serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain
an action.” James, 2024 WL 1509682, at *2 (citation omitted).
B. Federal Jurisdiction
Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that “a cause
of action lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994). The court must dismiss a pleading if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 3 of 8

4
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (h)(3). To proceed with a case, a federal district court must have at least one
of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (i) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant;
(ii) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (iii) diversity jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469
(11th Cir. 1997).
Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint
presents issues of federal law. Allah El v. Avesta Homes, LLC, 520 F. App’x 806, 807
(11th Cir. 2013). Diversity jurisdiction exists where “all plaintiffs [are] completely diverse from
all defendants, meaning that they must be citizens of different states or citizens of a state and
citizens of a foreign state, and the amount in controversy must be more than $ 75,000.” Id.
C. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must
plead enough facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Alcon Lab’ys, Inc. v. Allied
Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-61638, 2019 WL 2245584, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A court’s review of the sufficiency of the complaint
is limited to the allegations presented in the complaint and exhibits attached thereto. Id. (citing
GSW, Inc. v. Long Cty., Ga., 999 F.2d 1508, 1510 (11th Cir. 1993)). All factual allegations in the
complaint are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
(citing Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention,
623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted)); see also Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light
Co., 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
On the other hand, legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and are
insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 4 of 8

5
1272, 1284 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that courts may not act as a litigant’s lawyer and construct
the party’s theory of liability from facts never alleged, alluded to, or mentioned during the
litigation). Although a plaintiff need not provide “detailed factual allegations,” the complaint must
contain more than labels and conclusions, and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007))
(explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”).
III. DISCUSSION
A. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The party seeking to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of
demonstrating the existence of such jurisdiction. McCormick v. Alderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257
(11th Cir. 2002). Therefore, a plaintiff must “affirmatively allege facts demonstrating the
existence of jurisdiction.” Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994).
Here, the Amended Complaint alleges the existence of both federal question and diversity
jurisdiction. Amend. Compl., Part II, ¶¶ 1, 1-3. As a basis for federal question jurisdiction,
Plaintiffs cite 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the criminal wire fraud statute. Id. ¶ 1. This criminal statute,
however, does not provide a civil remedy nor confer federal question jurisdiction on this Court.
Thus, because no federal law (e.g., violations of federal civil statutes, treaties, or the Constitution)
is implicated in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish federal
question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Alternatively, as a basis for diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of
Connecticut, Defendant is a citizen of Florida, and the amount in controversy is $80,000, which
exceeds the required $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Amend. Compl., Part II, ¶¶ 1-3. Although
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 5 of 8

6
the allegations initially appear to satisfy the diverse citizenship requirement, Plaintiffs have
nonetheless not met their burden of establishing the requisite amount in controversy. As to amount
in controversy, the Amended Complaint alleges that the jurisdictional amount is based on
approximately $50,000 in probate attorneys’ fees,2 plus other undefined damages for “elder abuse,
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the scheme to defraud, and the attempt to alter [the
deceased mother’s] Will,” which, when combined, “Plaintiffs feel that $80,000.00 . . . is an
appropriate and fair amount of relief being sought for this action.” Id., Part V, ¶¶ 4, 8. Even
reading the Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiffs have failed to include sufficient facts to
support the claimed jurisdictional amount and have therefore not met their burden of establishing
the elements for diversity jurisdiction. See Taylor, 30 F.3d at 1367; McCormick, 293 F.3d at 1257.
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint can be dismissed for failure to establish federal
question or diversity jurisdiction.
B. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Fails to State a Claim
In addition, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. To withstand a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead enough facts to state
a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Alcon Lab’ys, Inc. v. Allied Vision Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-
61638, 2019 WL 2245584, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009)).
Here, Plaintiffs’ only cause of action is titled “Intent to Defraud,” and alleges that the
“scheme was carried out via email communications from Florida to Connecticut[,] which is a
violation under [18 U.S.C. § 1343].” Amend. Compl., Part IV, ¶ 9. But “Intent to Defraud” is not
2 Relatedly, as a general rule, only attorney’s fees allowed by statute or by contract count towards
the amount in controversy. Shelly v. Target Corp., 446 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1013 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
(citing Fed. Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors, LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 808 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003)).
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 6 of 8

7
a legally cognizable cause of action. Nor does the federal criminal wire fraud statute create a
private civil cause of action or otherwise endow this Court with jurisdiction over this matter.
In deference to Plaintiffs’ pro se status, however, the Court will analyze the allegations in
the Amended Complaint under the common law fraud framework, as that is the most analogous
cause of action to a scheme with intent to defraud. To state a claim for common law fraud under
Florida law, a plaintiff must establish: (i) a false statement of fact; (ii) known by the person making
the statement to be false at the time it was made; (iii) made for the purpose of inducing another to
act in reliance thereon; (iv) action by the other person in reliance on the correctness of the
statement; and (v) resulting damage to the other person. Huang v. Chen, No. 22-CV-60354, 2023
WL 6376703, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL
6376737 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2023) (citing Gustin v. Bank, 859 F. App’x 889, 891 (11th Cir. 2021)).
The Amended Complaint, however, fails to allege every element of a claim for fraud.3
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint can also be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Nonetheless, because Plaintiffs are appearing pro se, the Court will give Plaintiffs one final
opportunity to amend their complaint to properly state a cause of action. See Carter v. HSBC
Mortg. Servs., Inc., 622 F. App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that a pro se plaintiff “must be
given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with
prejudice, at least where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim”) (citations and
quotations omitted); see also Watkins v. Hudson, 560 F. App’x 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding
district court erred in dismissing claims with prejudice where the court could not say “with
certainty” that amendment would be futile).
3 Additionally, the Court questions whether Plaintiff Micalizzi is a proper Plaintiff in this action,
as there are no facts in the Amended Complaint that support his involvement in the underlying
events. See (ECF No. 32 at 3).
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 7 of 8

8
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Motion (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART;4
2. The Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of
this Order. The Second Amended Complaint must properly allege: (i) subject matter jurisdiction;
and (ii) a proper cause of action; and
3. The case is administratively CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 21, 2026.
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record
Ivy Beth Handsman & Mike Micalizzi, Pro Se
55 Mill Plain Rd. #21-8
Danbury, CT 06811
4 Although the Motion sought to dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice, (ECF No. 32 at
1, 8), the undersigned is giving Plaintiffs one more chance to amend their pleading and is therefore
granting the relief requested in the Motion only in part.
Case 0:25-cv-60533-AOV Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2026 Page 8 of 8