Minichino v. La Rosa

Background

Marie Minichino, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Leo La Rosa, Marshall Meyer, Nick Cohen Meyer, Ruth Lesser, “Mrs. Naimoon,” and Kitt Shoh. She described the case as involving employment claims and listed allegations including employment fraud, financial fraud against an elder, failure to pay minimum wages or taxes, elder abuse, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide breaks, and failure to provide days off. She also asserted claims labeled “Federal Financial Fraud,” “Employment Fraud,” “Tax Fraud,” “Social Security Fraud,” “Elder Abuse,” and “Emotional Support Animal Violation.”

The court granted Minichino’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because she was proceeding without paying that fee, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal in specified circumstances, including when a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant.

Jurisdictional problems

The court found that the complaint did not appear to establish diversity jurisdiction. Minichino checked a form box stating that no plaintiff lived in the same state as any defendant and that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000. But she did not identify any party’s state of citizenship, alleged that at least four defendants resided at the same Walnut Creek, California address as she did, and did not support her demand for millions of dollars with facts showing that more than $75,000 was actually in controversy.

The court also found that the complaint did not appear to establish federal-question jurisdiction. Minichino did not identify a federal statute supporting most of her claims. The court stated that bare assertions of legal violations, without facts such as who employed her, how many hours she worked, or how much she was paid, did not state a plausible claim. It further explained that federal laws concerning unemployment taxes and Social Security taxes do not give an employee a private right to sue an employer to enforce those tax-payment requirements.

The court found that the claim concerning sixty consecutive days of work did not identify a federal violation because the Fair Labor Standards Act does not regulate the number of consecutive days an employee may work. It also found that the allegations about threats of violence lacked sufficient facts and did not identify a particular federal law that the alleged conduct violated.

The elder-abuse claim consisted only of the words “Elder Abuse” and a statement reserving the right to amend. The court found no factual allegations or reference to a particular law. The emotional-support-animal claim alleged that defendants had “kidnapped” Minichino’s emotional-support kittens, but did not identify a federal law or provide enough information to determine whether a federal claim might be viable. The court noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act can protect rights involving service animals in some circumstances, but has requirements concerning training and disability and generally applies to service dogs rather than kittens.

Order

The court did not reach whether Minichino might have a valid claim under state law because no substantial federal claim or other basis for federal jurisdiction was apparent. It ordered her to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by August 22, 2024. She had to file either an amended complaint addressing the identified problems or a response explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the current complaint and would need to include all allegations and claims she wished to pursue.

The order itself granted the application to proceed without paying the filing fee and issued an order to show cause. It did not dismiss the case in this order. The court stated that if Minichino did not respond by the deadline, or if her filing did not resolve the identified issues, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed.