Jordan-Rowell v. Merrill Edge
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-07683
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jordan-Rowell v. Merrill Edge, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Janessa Jordan-Rowell's complaint was dismissed, and the court denied her permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Merrill Edge was the defendant in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Jordan-Rowell v. Merrill Edge, Janessa Jordan-Rowell sued Merrill Edge, alleging that it failed to close her cash management account. She represented herself and paid the filing fees.
The court previously allowed Jordan-Rowell to file an amended complaint showing facts that would give the federal court authority to hear her claims. Her amended complaint was virtually identical to the original and did not fix the identified problems.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Jordan-Rowell v. Merrill Edge · No. 1:19-cv-07683
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 9, 2019
Background
Janessa Jordan-Rowell brought this action without a lawyer against Merrill Edge. She alleged that Merrill Edge failed to close her cash management account. The opinion states that the filing fees had been paid.
Earlier Order and Amended Complaint
On September 23, 2019, the court gave Jordan-Rowell permission to file an amended complaint alleging facts that demonstrated the court had subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's legal authority to hear a type of dispute. On October 1, 2019, Jordan-Rowell filed an amended complaint that was virtually identical to the initial complaint. The court concluded that it did not correct the deficiencies identified in the September 23 order.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the September 23 order, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court did not describe the specific jurisdictional deficiency in this order beyond stating that the amended complaint failed to cure the earlier problems.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The order directed the Clerk of Court to note service on the docket and stated that Jordan-Rowell had consented to electronic service of court filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.