Jules v. The City of New York
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:24-cv-10056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Josephine Jules v. The City of New York, Judge Wood dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to replead.
Josephine Jules's lawsuit against the City of New York was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but she was allowed 30 days to file a second amended complaint.
What happened
In Josephine Jules v. The City of New York, Josephine Jules, representing herself, alleged that the City failed to protect her from hazardous conditions after the September 11, 2001 attacks. She said exposure to contaminants near the World Trade Center caused serious health problems and sought money damages under state law.
The court ruled that these claims could be heard in federal court only if the parties were citizens of different states. Jules said she was a citizen of Sweden but also said she resided in New York, and the court concluded from the complaint that the parties were not diverse. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Kimba M. Wood gave Jules 30 days to file a second amended complaint alleging facts showing that she was not domiciled in New York as a legal permanent resident. The court also denied her permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and directed the Clerk to keep the case open until judgment is entered.
The detailed version
- Jules v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-10056
- Alvin Hellerstein
- June 2, 2025
Background
Josephine Jules, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York over alleged exposure to hazardous conditions after the September 11, 2001 attacks. She alleged that, beginning September 12, 2001, she relied on the City's assurances that air quality near the World Trade Center was safe. She claimed that exposure to toxic contaminants caused serious latent injuries, including lung, autoimmune, cerebrovascular, and other medical conditions. She sought money damages under state law.
Jules stated that she lived near the World Trade Center until March 2002, that she resided in New York, and that she was a citizen of Sweden. She also alleged that she received medical care in New York City, Sweden, and Canada. She said she had filed a notice of claim and participated in hearings under New York's municipal-law procedures.
Jurisdiction analysis
The court explained that claims for injuries incurred at the World Trade Center site through September 29, 2001, are governed by the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001 and must be brought in federal court under federal-question jurisdiction. The court determined that Jules's claims concerned conduct occurring after September 29, 2001, so they were state-law claims. Such claims could proceed in federal court only if diversity jurisdiction existed.
Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff and defendant to be citizens of different states. The court stated that Jules's complaint indicated that both parties resided in New York State. Although Jules identified herself as a Swedish citizen, the court concluded from the face of the complaint that it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction over her claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), with 30 days' leave to replead. It granted Jules permission to file a second amended complaint stating facts showing that she was not domiciled in New York State as a legal permanent resident. If she intended to sue additional defendants, the court instructed her to include them in the caption. If she did not file a second amended complaint within the allowed time, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to enter judgment.
The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jules permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.