Encarnacion v. Rosenblatt
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-10078
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Encarnacion v. Rosenblatt, Judge Swain dismissed a rent-and-utilities dispute for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to amend.
Niurka Encarnacion’s case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but she may file an amended complaint within 30 days; the named defendants remain parties unless the case is later resolved.
What happened
In Encarnacion v. Rosenblatt, Niurka Encarnacion, representing herself, sued individuals affiliated with organizations involved in her housing dispute. She alleged that gas and electricity services were disconnected, that rent-related proceedings were pending, and that the defendants failed to follow a state housing agency’s rent-reduction order. She sought an injunction, damages, fees, and other relief.
The court found that Encarnacion had not shown either basis for federal jurisdiction. Her allegations did not identify a federal-law claim, and she did not provide enough information about the parties’ citizenship or facts supporting her claimed damages for state-law claims under the diversity rules. The court therefore dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without deciding whether her underlying housing claims were valid.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Encarnacion 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing federal jurisdiction. The court also gave her 30 days to move to seal her original complaint, which contained her complete Social Security number, and denied fee-free appeal status because it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Encarnacion v. Rosenblatt · No. 1:24-cv-10078
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
Niurka Encarnacion filed the action without a stated jurisdictional basis and sought injunctive relief and damages. She appeared without a lawyer. The defendants were Lawrence Muzzy Rosenblatt, Salvatore J. Davola, Josh K. Koppel, and Eric H. Kahan, whom Encarnacion identified as individuals affiliated with organizations involved in her tenancy.
Encarnacion alleged that eviction proceedings based on nonpayment of rent had been initiated against her in New York City Civil Court. She also alleged that her landlord or landlords had discontinued gas service and that the defendants later disconnected her electricity, which she said she had to pay to restore. The complaint referred to a June 2024 New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal administrative order reducing the rent and directing the owner to restore services. Encarnacion alleged that the defendants disregarded that order and did not respond to her “Notice of Constructive Conditional Acceptance.” She requested enforcement of the administrative order, compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction against retaliation, fees, costs, and other relief.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in dispute.
For federal-question jurisdiction, the court found that Encarnacion had not alleged facts showing that her claims arose under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court characterized the allegations as concerning a landlord-tenant dispute involving utilities, services, and unpaid rent, and found no apparent federal cause of action or substantial federal-law question.
For diversity jurisdiction, the court found that Encarnacion did not identify the defendants’ state citizenships or, if she intended to sue the affiliated organizations, those organizations’ citizenships. The court also found that her claimed damages were speculative and conclusory and lacked facts showing that the claims plausibly exceeded $75,000.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Encarnacion 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The order did not decide the merits of her housing, utility, contract, or retaliation allegations.
The court also granted Encarnacion 30 days to file a motion to seal her original complaint because it disclosed her complete Social Security number. Electronic access to that complaint remained restricted to case participants during that period. If she did not file the motion, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to restore public electronic access. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. It directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.