Pagan v. Ahne

Background

Jorge Pagan, representing himself, brought the action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and the Declaratory Judgment Act. He alleged that the defendants deprived Denise Petretti of a constitutionally protected property interest in a residence. Pagan said he was acting both for himself and as Petretti’s agent under a power of attorney. The defendants were identified as Amelia Ahne, a property manager or representative of Douglas Elliman Property Management; 255 W. 108 Street Corp., the cooperative housing corporation that owns and manages the property; Jan Jericho, a cooperative-board member; and Sylvia P. Tsai, Jericho’s legal counsel.

Federal-question jurisdiction

Federal-question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases arising under federal law. The court concluded that Pagan’s complaint did not state a legally recognizable claim under the federal laws he cited.

For the claim under Section 1983, Pagan needed to allege both a violation of federal rights and conduct by someone acting under state authority. The court found that he alleged no facts showing that the defendants were state actors or acted together with a state actor. The court also noted that a private attorney is not a state actor merely because of the attorney’s role. Pagan’s statement that the defendants acted “under color of law” was, in the court’s view, only a conclusory statement.

For the Section 1985 claim, the court explained that Pagan needed to allege a conspiracy intended to deny equal protection, an act furthering that conspiracy, and the deprivation of a federal right. The alleged conspiracy also had to be motivated by racial or another similar form of class-based discriminatory bias. The court found no factual basis to plausibly infer that the defendants acted with such bias.

The court further held that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not independently create federal jurisdiction. Because the complaint did not establish federal-question jurisdiction over the Section 1983 or Section 1985 claims, the request for a declaration could not establish jurisdiction by itself.

Diversity jurisdiction

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The court concluded that Pagan was domiciled in New York because he alleged that he had lived at the property for more than 25 years and provided that address to the court. The court also found that 255 W. 108 Street Corp. was incorporated in New York. Because Pagan and that corporation were both connected to New York for diversity purposes, complete diversity was absent.

Leave to amend and representation of Petretti

The court concluded that repleading would be futile and declined to allow an amended complaint. It held that Pagan, who is not an attorney, could not represent Petretti in federal court while appearing without a lawyer, even if he held her power of attorney. The court stated that Petretti could pursue the claims by filing a new complaint herself or by retaining a licensed attorney.

Disposition

Judge Rearden dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.