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
- 6
In Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Stanton dismissed constitutional claims and declined state-law jurisdiction after Con Edison shut off her power.
Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith’s federal constitutional claims were dismissed, and her state-law claims were left for the court to decline to hear after the federal claims were dismissed. Con Edison prevailed in this action.
What happened
In Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith alleged that Con Edison violated her federal constitutional and state-law rights by disconnecting her power after she disputed the utility’s payment process.
The court ruled that Con Edison was not acting as a state actor, so the constitutional claims under federal civil-rights law could not proceed. The court also found no basis for hearing the state-law claims in federal court because the alleged parties were both New York citizens, the requested damages were only $4,444, and no viable federal claim remained.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim, declined to hear the state-law claims, denied leave to amend, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Thomas/Smith v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc · No. 1:25-cv-03687
- Louis Stanton
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Cheryl-Ann Thomas/Smith proceeded without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court granted that request on May 13, 2025. On May 14, 2025, the court denied her request for an emergency order requiring restoration of her power.
Thomas/Smith alleged that she sent Con Edison payment and supporting documents by registered mail, filed what she called a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement against the company, and sent additional notices. She alleged that Con Edison did not respond and disconnected her service on April 30, 2025. She sought immediate restoration of power, recognition of her payment, and $4,444 in damages.
Federal claims
The court treated Thomas/Smith’s constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that generally requires the defendant to have acted under authority or through conduct fairly attributable to state government. The court held that Con Edison, although regulated by New York State, was not a state actor for this purpose. Thomas/Smith did not allege facts showing that Con Edison acted jointly with government officials. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
State-law claims and jurisdiction
Thomas/Smith also asserted breach-of-contract and Uniform Commercial Code claims. The court found that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because the complaint alleged that both Thomas/Smith and Con Edison were New York citizens. It also found that the requested $4,444 in damages was below the $75,000 amount required for diversity jurisdiction.
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. The court explained that the federal claims had been dismissed at an early stage and that only state-law claims remained.
Leave to amend and disposition
The court denied leave to amend because the allegations gave no indication that the defects could be cured by changing the complaint. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action, and did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.