Torres v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Background

Maria Torres sued Mount Sinai Hospital, Jane Doe(s), and John Doe(s), individually and in her capacities identified in the caption. The court had previously ordered Torres to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case.

The court said the complaint did not appear to assert claims under the federal laws it referenced. It also said that the complaint did not support diversity jurisdiction for Torres’s state negligence and medical-malpractice claims because Torres pleaded that she and a defendant were citizens of New York.

Procedural history

Torres asked for more time to file a rebuttal to the defendant’s answer, but the court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not require or authorize such a filing and directed her to respond to the order requiring her to explain the basis for federal jurisdiction. A response was submitted in an improper format, and the court arranged for it to be filed. The response stated that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applied, but the court found it unclear whether Torres intended to amend her complaint to add a civil RICO claim.

At a January 7, 2025 conference, Torres said she was an attorney licensed in New Jersey and requested permission to amend her complaint and to appear in this case as an out-of-state attorney. The court granted leave to amend by January 24, 2025. After Torres missed that deadline, the court granted her untimely request for an extension and set March 4, 2025, as the new deadline. The court warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal or barring claims.

The court later granted Torres’s request to appear as an attorney in the case. It stated that, because she was now appearing as an attorney, she was no longer entitled to the special leniency generally given to people representing themselves without lawyers.

Order

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that Torres’s continued failure to adequately establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, or to file an amended complaint by March 4, 2025, would result in dismissal of the case. The February 28 order itself did not dismiss the case or decide the merits of the claims. It also reminded the parties that failure to comply with court rules or orders could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal, or barring claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence.