Kallos v. Kallos
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-07724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Kallos v. Kallos, Judge McMahon dismissed the federal case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the requested injunction as moot.
Dr. June E. Kallos and David Elliot Tash lost this federal action because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction. Benjamin Jules Kallos was not subjected to the requested injunction, and Tash was told he could bring a new false-arrest action against appropriate defendants.
What happened
Kallos v. Kallos involved Dr. June E. Kallos and David Elliot Tash, who represented themselves in a lawsuit against Benjamin Jules Kallos. They alleged that Benjamin caused Tash’s false arrest, made complaints to Adult Protective Services, and caused financial and emotional harm. They sought money and court orders restricting Benjamin’s conduct.
The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately establish federal-question jurisdiction. Their claims under the civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, did not plausibly allege that a New York City policy or practice caused their injuries. The plaintiffs also alleged that all parties lived in New York, so diversity jurisdiction was unavailable.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied the request for an injunction as moot. The court also stated that Tash could file a new false-arrest action against appropriate defendants, but it denied him permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Kallos v. Kallos · No. 1:19-cv-07724
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
Dr. June E. Kallos and David Elliot Tash, appearing without lawyers, sued Benjamin Jules Kallos. The plaintiffs proceeded without prepaying filing fees after the court granted their requests to do so. They invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Kallos and Benjamin, her son, were estranged. They alleged that Benjamin made complaints to Adult Protective Services and used those complaints to retaliate against and harass Dr. Kallos and Tash. Tash also alleged that Benjamin caused his false arrest on September 1, 2017. The plaintiffs said the charges were later dismissed and the case was sealed. They alleged more than $100,000 in medical bills and legal fees, and Tash separately alleged lost wages of about $40,000.
The plaintiffs sought reimbursement for expenses, an order preventing Benjamin from making allegedly untrue reports or trying to transfer ownership of Dr. Kallos’s cooperative apartment to himself, and a recommendation that Dr. Kallos and Benjamin attend counseling.
Jurisdiction and Claims
The court explained that federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that merely invoking federal jurisdiction did not create jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Benjamin in his official capacity as a New York City Councilman. The court explained that such an official-capacity claim must plausibly allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiffs’ federal rights. The court found that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that any City of New York policy or custom caused their injuries. It therefore stated that the § 1983 claims against Benjamin in his official capacity must be dismissed.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the plaintiffs and defendant to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. The court found that the plaintiffs had indicated that all parties resided in New York, preventing complete diversity.
Disposition
The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief as moot. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court said that Tash could file a new false-arrest action in the district court against appropriate defendants. It advised that any new action would require either the filing fee or a completed request to proceed without prepaying fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.