Waheed v. MLMIC Insurance Company

Background

Sehra Waheed proceeded without a lawyer and invoked the court's federal-question jurisdiction. She alleged that she suffered complications after an outpatient hysteroscopy performed by Dr. Sonia Kim on July 26, 2018. She later filed a medical-malpractice action in New York state court against Dr. Kim, Garden OBGYN, Bethpage Medical, and MLMIC Insurance Company.

Waheed alleged that MLMIC engaged in discovery abuse, delay, and frivolous motions during that litigation and failed to settle within policy limits. She alleged that this caused legal and medical expenses, past-due bills, possible eviction, emotional harm, financial harm, and tax garnishment. She claimed that MLMIC's failure to provide interim rent payments violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). She also asserted state-law medical-malpractice and insurance-bad-faith claims and sought declaratory relief and rental payments.

ADA claims

The court explained that the ADA's three sections address employment discrimination, discrimination by public entities, and discrimination in access to public accommodations operated by private entities. The court concluded that Waheed's allegations did not concern her attempt to access a public accommodation or a failure to accommodate her disability at a defendant's location. Instead, her request for rent payments arose from the alleged conduct surrounding the medical procedure and later litigation. The court dismissed the ADA claim for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

FHA claims

The court explained that the FHA generally prohibits housing discrimination based on specified protected characteristics, including disability. It concluded that Waheed's allegations did not concern discrimination in housing or a landlord's discrimination against her because of a disability. The court found that she sought rental payments as compensation for the defendants' alleged conduct, not because of housing discrimination, and dismissed the FHA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Temporary restraining order and rental payments

Waheed moved for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring rental payments. The court stated that preliminary injunctive relief requires a showing of likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions supporting litigation and a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff. Because the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, it concluded that Waheed could not satisfy the merits requirement. The court denied the motion.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Waheed might be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court's authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case; the court explained that it may decline that authority after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

The court also declined to grant Waheed leave to amend. It concluded that the complaint showed she could not state a claim under the ADA or FHA and that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), denied the motion for a temporary restraining order, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, declined to grant leave to amend, and directed the clerk to enter a civil judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.