McKay v. Spectrum Cable

Background

Diane Karen McKay, appearing without a lawyer, sued Spectrum Cable. She alleged that Spectrum misrepresented the amount of her cable bill, charged her too much, demanded payment of an overdue amount, and added services without authorization. She sought an order requiring Spectrum to adjust her bill and restore her services.

McKay invoked federal-question jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. In the complaint section asking which federal rights had been violated, she wrote “cable bill charge unauthorization,” but she did not identify a federal law or constitutional right.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court explained that merely checking the box for federal-question jurisdiction does not establish federal jurisdiction. Because McKay did not identify a federal legal basis for her claim, the court concluded that it could not exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

The court also considered whether the allegations could support a state-law claim, even though McKay did not expressly identify one. For purposes of the order, the court assumed that her allegation of an $180 overcharge might state a claim under New York law. But diversity jurisdiction requires, among other things, a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The complaint showed that this requirement was not met, so the court also lacked diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to allow McKay to amend because the jurisdictional defects could not be cured by amendment. The court stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to McKay filing a case in New York State court, most likely in small claims court.

Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McKay permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.