Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-03687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Stanton denied preliminary injunctive relief because the allegations did not show likely success or federal jurisdiction.
Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith’s request for emergency relief against Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. was denied; the complaint remained for later consideration.
What happened
In Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison, Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith alleged that Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. violated her constitutional due-process and state-law rights by shutting off her power for nonpayment. She asked the court for an emergency order requiring relief.
The court said preliminary relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either likely success or serious legal questions with the hardships strongly favoring the plaintiff. It found that her allegations did not meet that standard. The court also explained that Con Edison is not generally treated as a government actor under the civil-rights statute she invoked, and that her filings did not show federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied Thomas/Smith’s request for an order to show cause. The court said it would address the complaint separately and did not dismiss the complaint in this order.
The detailed version
- Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc · No. 1:25-cv-03687
- Louis Stanton
- May 15, 2025
Background
Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith proceeded without a lawyer and alleged that Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. violated her federal constitutional right to due process and her state-law rights when it shut off her power for nonpayment. With her complaint, she filed an unsigned request for an order requiring the defendant to appear and explain why preliminary injunctive relief should not issue. The opinion states that Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain had earlier granted Thomas/Smith permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Court’s Analysis
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. The plaintiff must show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions for litigation, with the balance of hardships strongly favoring her.
The court found that Thomas/Smith’s submissions did not show either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships. It also concluded that the allegations did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
The constitutional claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that generally applies to government actors rather than private parties. The court held that Con Edison, even though regulated by the state, is not a state actor for Section 1983 purposes without facts showing a sufficiently close connection or joint action between the government and the utility. Thomas/Smith had alleged no such facts, and the court found no other viable federal-law claim in her allegations.
The court further stated that the remaining claims, including claims under the Uniform Commercial Code and for breach of contract, arose under state law. It found no diversity jurisdiction because Thomas/Smith and Con Edison were alleged to be citizens of New York, and because the claimed damages were $4,444, below the $75,000 statutory threshold.
Ruling
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied Thomas/Smith’s request for an order to show cause, identified as ECF 3. The order states that the court would address the complaint in due course; it did not dismiss the complaint in this ruling.
Disposition
The request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied. The opinion does not state that the complaint itself was dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.