Moncion v. The Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York

Moncion v. The Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BETTY MONCION, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4822 (LTS) -against- HANNUM FERETIC PRENDERGAST ORDER OF DISMISSAL MERLINO, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendant Hannum Feretic Prendergast Merlino LLC, a law firm, violated her rights. By order dated June 8, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint, but grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

141 F.3d 434, 437

(2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

572 F.3d 66, 72

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

470 F.3d 471, 474

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases,

id. at 475

(citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570

(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678-79

(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555

. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely

possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Id.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Betty Moncion brings her claims using the court’s general complaint form to which she attaches a one-page statement of her claims. She checks the box on the complaint form to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction, and in response to the question asking which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, “They violate my rigth. The layer from that law firm. Erol Burgan.” (ECF 1, at 2.)1

1 Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. The following allegations can be gleaned from the one-page attachment to the complaint. Plaintiff is suing Defendant for “tak[ing her] information from the court and send[ing] people to [her] house.” (Id. at 8.) Somebody came to Plaintiff’s door three times on different days. The last time someone came to her door, on February 16 of an unspecified year, “my daughter call me crying told me some body knocked the door and she very scared[.] I told her call the police

because [there] can be danger.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that nobody knows where she lives, and she does not give her address to anybody. She writes, “[T]hat law office have my P.O. Box and I receive every thing from there in my P.O. Box. They send people. To. My house.” (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges, “To perpuse I believe the lawyer represent the defendant in one case I sued geek shop store in Brooklyn where I was injured[.] This lawyer or some body in the case go into the court and check my information. And use my address for send people to my house.” (Id.) Erol Burgan, “the lawyer of the defendant” assaulted Plaintiff and “used discrimination against me before I call him from asking about some court pape[r] he send to me and he always screaming me told me I don’t know English.” (Id.)

It appears that Burgan represented a store in which Plaintiff was injured and he “refused to pay for all my injury I suffer in the store owner he represent.” (Id.) Plaintiff appears to allege that Burgan “intimidated” her using racism and defamation. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks $200,000 for defamation and discrimination. DISCUSSION A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. “‘[I]t is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc.,

30 F.3d 298, 301

(2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford,

711 F.2d 501, 503

(2d Cir. 1983)); see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

526 U.S. 574, 583

(1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative.”). To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1331

. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain,

485 F.3d 730

, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting

Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh,

547 U.S. 677, 690

(2006)). Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund,

81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89

(2d Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff checks the box on the complaint form to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but she does not allege facts showing that the court can consider her claims under its federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated her rights, but a claim for relief under the federal civil rights statute,

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.”

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Private parties therefore generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of America,

723 F.3d 399, 406

(2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,

531 U.S. 288, 295

(2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau,

292 F.3d 307, 323

(2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”). Absent special circumstances suggesting concerted action

between an attorney and a state representative, see Nicholas v. Goord,

430 F.3d 652

, 656 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,

398 U.S. 144, 152

(1970)), the representation of a defendant by private counsel in state criminal proceedings does not constitute the degree of state involvement or interference necessary to establish a claim under Section 1983, regardless of whether that attorney is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. See Bourdon v. Loughren,

386 F.3d 88, 90

(2d Cir. 2004) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312, 324-25

(1981)); see also Schnabel v. Abramson,

232 F.3d 83, 87

(2d Cir. 2000) (holding that legal aid organization ordinarily is not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983). Because Defendant Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino LLC is a private law firm that is not alleged

to have been working for any state or other government body when it took the actions that Plaintiff complains of, it cannot be held liable under Section 1983. To the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims under state law, she does not allege facts sufficient to show that the Court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction of this action. To establish diversity jurisdiction, a plaintiff must first allege that the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states.

28 U.S.C. § 1332

; Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht,

524 U.S. 381, 388

(1998). For diversity purposes, an individual is a citizen of the State where he is domiciled, which is defined as the place where a person “has his true fixed home . . . and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio,

232 F.3d 38, 42

(2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An individual “has but one domicile.”

Id.

“[A] limited liability company . . .[,] [however,] takes the citizenship of each of its members.” Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC,

692 F.3d 42, 49

(2d Cir. 2012). In addition, for diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege to a “reasonable

probability” that her claims are in excess of the sum or value of $75,000, the statutory jurisdictional amount. See § 1332(a); Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc.,

438 F.3d 214

, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the Court has diversity jurisdiction of her claims. Plaintiff alleges that she resides in New York. Defendant, however, is a limited liability company and therefore takes on the citizenship of each of its members. Plaintiff does not identify or allege the citizenship of the members of the Defendant limited liability company. Furthermore, although she seeks $200,000 in damages, it is unclear from the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims are worth in excess of the $75,000 statutory minimum.

The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of her claims. To invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that her claims arise under federal law. To bring state law claims, such as defamation, under the court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that Defendant is a citizen of a state other than New York and that her claims are worth in excess of $75,000. B. Leave to Replead Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

657 F.3d 116, 123-24

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

861 F.2d 40, 42

(2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu,

222 F.3d 99, 112

(2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank,

171 F.3d 794, 795

(2d Cir. 1999)). The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’

leave to amend her complaint to allege facts demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of her claims. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include: a) the names and titles of all relevant people; b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred; c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated her federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(3). The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ to replead her claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 23-CV-4822 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will enter judgment consistent with this order. The Court certifies under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See

Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 10, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y O R K

____ Civ. ________ ( ____ )

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s).) AMENDED COMPLAINT -against-

Jury Trial: Q Yes Q No (check one)

(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). If you cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained in Part I. Addresses should not be included here.) I. Parties in this complaint: A. List your name, address and telephone number. If you are presently in custody, include your identification number and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Plaintiff Name ___________________________________________________________________ Street Address ____________________________________________________________ County, City ______________________________________________________________ State & Zip Code __________________________________________________________ Telephone Number ________________________________________________________ B. List all defendants. You should state the full name of the defendant, even if that defendant is a government agency, an organization, a corporation, or an individual. Include the address where each defendant may be served. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Street Address _______________________________________________________ County, City _________________________________________________________ State & Zip Code ____________________________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________________________ Defendant No. 2 Name ___________________________________________________________ Street Address _______________________________________________________ County, City _________________________________________________________ State & Zip Code ____________________________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________________________ Defendant No. 3 Name ___________________________________________________________ Street Address _______________________________________________________ County, City _________________________________________________________ State & Zip Code ____________________________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________________________ Defendant No. 4 Name ___________________________________________________________ Street Address _______________________________________________________ County, City _________________________________________________________ State & Zip Code ____________________________________________________ Telephone Number ____________________________________________________ II. Basis for Jurisdiction: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under

28 U.S.C. § 1331

, a case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under

28 U.S.C. § 1332

, a case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount in damages is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction? (check all that apply) Q Federal Questions Q Diversity of Citizenship B. If the basis for jurisdiction is Federal Question, what federal Constitutional, statutory or treaty right is at issue? _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ C. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each party? Plaintiff(s) state(s) of citizenship ____________________________________________________ Defendant(s) state(s) of citizenship ____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ III. Statement of Claim: State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each of the defendants named in the caption of this complaint is involved in this action, along with the dates and locations of all relevant events. You may wish to include further details such as the names of other persons involved in the events giving rise to your claims. Do not cite any cases or statutes. If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. A. Where did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur? _______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ B. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur? ___________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ C. Facts: _________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ W hah pa pt ened ______________________________________________________________________________________ to you? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Who did ______________________________________________________________________________________ what? _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Was anyone ____________________________________________________________________________________ else involved? ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ W sawho w e hls ae t _____________________________________________________________________________________ happened? _____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

IV. Injuries: If you sustained injuries related to the events alleged above, describe them and state what medical treatment, if any, you required and received. ________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ State what you want the Court to do for you and the amount of monetary compensation, if any, you are seeking, and the basis for such compensation.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this day of , 20 . Signature of Plaintiff _____________________________________ Mailing Address _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Telephone Number _____________________________________ Fax Number (if you have one) _______________________________ Note: All plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint must date and sign the complaint. Prisoners must also provide their inmate numbers, present place of confinement, and address. For Prisoners: I declare under penalty of perjury that on this _____ day of _________________, 20__, I am delivering this complaint to prison authorities to be mailed to the Pro Se Office of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Signature of Plaintiff: _____________________________________ Inmate Number _____________________________________

Reference

Status
Unknown