Parkes v. Blumenfeld Development Group, LTD

Background

Tiffany Anne Parkes, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action against Bluemenfeld Development Group, Ltd. and First Service Residential, Inc. Parkes alleged that the defendants allowed unauthorized entry into her apartment while she was absent, removed SIM cards from her electronic devices, and failed to provide a secure dwelling, which she said made her sick from toxicity in the apartment.

The initial complaint asserted claims involving the Fourth Amendment, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York Penal Law § 215.40, and New York’s warranty-of-habitability law. After reviewing that complaint, the court ordered Parkes to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The court noted that the parties were all citizens of New York, defeating diversity jurisdiction as stated in the opinion, and that the Fourth Amendment generally applies to government action rather than conduct by private defendants. The court also noted that the international agreement does not create a private cause of action in United States courts.

Parkes responded that the defendants were allegedly co-actors with Central Intelligence Agency agents because those agents would need the defendants’ permission to enter her apartment and building elevator. She also asserted that 18 U.S.C. § 1029 applied. Parkes then filed an amended complaint, again relying on the Fourth Amendment, asserting claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 249, and reasserting her New York claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which requires dismissal when a federal court lacks legal authority to hear a case. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Federal jurisdiction generally requires either a federal question or diversity of citizenship together with more than $75,000 in controversy.

The court held that the amended complaint did not cure the jurisdictional problems. Parkes did not explain how the Fourth Amendment applied because neither defendant was a government actor. Sections 241 and 249 are criminal statutes and do not provide a private right to sue. Because the court found no original federal jurisdiction, it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parkes’s state-law claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed Parkes’s action and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. This was a jurisdictional ruling; the court did not decide whether Parkes’s underlying allegations were legally or factually correct.