Tonner v. First Service Residential Corporation
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-06913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tonner v. First Service Residential Corporation, Judge Wood dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denied IFP status for any appeal.
Stephen D. Tonner and the named defendants; the action was dismissed, and appeal-related IFP status was denied.
What happened
In Tonner v. First Service Residential Corporation, Stephen D. Tonner sued Firstservice Corporation, Firstservice Residential Ontario, and other named defendants. The judgment states that Tonner filed the complaint without prepaying court fees.
The court dismissed the complaint because it lacked authority to hear the case. It entered judgment dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Judge Kimba Wood’s judgment also states that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so the court denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The provided judgment does not include the reasons from the court’s July 2, 2025 order.
The detailed version
- Tonner v. First Service Residential Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-06913
- Kimba Wood
- July 8, 2025
Background
Stephen D. Tonner brought this action against Firstservice Corporation, Firstservice Residential Ontario, and the other defendants listed in the judgment. The judgment states that the complaint was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which allows a qualifying person to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Court’s ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s July 2, 2025 order, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to decide a type of dispute. The judgment cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal when that authority is lacking. The court entered judgment dismissing the action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the July 2 order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied the plaintiff’s ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Disposition
The action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appeal-related fee-waiver status was denied. The provided text does not include the July 2 order’s explanation of why jurisdiction was lacking.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.