Thomas v. Timothy Cawley and Consolidated Edison Company of New York

Background

Melissa Ann Thomas, representing herself, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Timothy Cawley, identified as Con Edison’s Chairman and CEO. She alleged that the defendants violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating electrical service to her residence for nonpayment.

Thomas alleged that Con Edison had charged her account for some or all of a former tenant’s utility debt. She said she never agreed to assume that debt and that Con Edison had not produced documentation showing that she was legally responsible for it. Con Edison sent final turn-off notices in March and May 2026. After Thomas did not pay the outstanding balance, which the notices listed as approximately $8,922.67 and $8,500.22, Con Edison disconnected electrical service on June 1, 2026.

Thomas asked the court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction directing Con Edison to restore service while the lawsuit was pending. Because restoring service would change the existing situation rather than preserve it, the court applied the more demanding standard for a mandatory injunction.

Court’s Analysis

The court construed Thomas’s constitutional allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by a state actor. The court explained that a private company generally is not a state actor merely because it is regulated by the government. A plaintiff must allege facts showing a sufficiently close connection or joint action between the government and the private company.

The court found that Thomas’s complaint and motion did not allege facts suggesting that Con Edison acted jointly with the government when it terminated service. The court therefore concluded that Thomas had not shown a likelihood of success on her Section 1983 claims.

The court also reviewed whether Thomas had identified another federal legal basis for the case. It concluded that Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not allow a private lawsuit; that Thomas did not assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or allege facts showing that the defendants were covered debt collectors; and that the Uniform Commercial Code and “Accepted for Value” materials did not create a federal cause of action. The court characterized the latter materials as arguments associated with the sovereign citizen movement and declined to consider them.

The court further ruled that Thomas could not add entirely new claims for breach of contract or negligence for the first time in her motion papers. It stated that those claims were based on state law and that Thomas had not alleged the facts needed for diversity jurisdiction, including the required citizenship information concerning the parties and the required amount in dispute. The court stated that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

Ruling

The court concluded that Thomas had not shown a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any federal claim. Because she failed to satisfy that requirement, the court did not address the remaining preliminary-injunction factors, such as irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, or the public interest.

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Thomas’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief. The opinion did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss the complaint; it stated that the complaint would be addressed after the parties completed briefing on that motion.