Farmer v. Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-05947
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Farmer v. Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C., Judge Failla granted defendants’ motions to dismiss because the complaint lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Richard Farmer’s claims against the Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C. defendants and the Terc defendants were dismissed because the court found no subject-matter jurisdiction.
What happened
Richard Farmer, representing himself, sued the Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C. defendants and the Terc defendants. He alleged that lawyers who represented him in an earlier lawsuit defrauded him and the court to obtain attorney fees and a larger share of a settlement.
The court found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because Farmer and at least some defendants were citizens of New York. It also found that Farmer’s federal claims relied on criminal mail-fraud and wire-fraud statutes, which do not allow private lawsuits. The court therefore had no federal-question jurisdiction and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions and remaining dates, and closed the case. The court did not consider defendants’ other arguments or the merits of Farmer’s claims.
The detailed version
- Farmer v. Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C. · No. 1:19-cv-05947
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 20, 2020
Background
Richard Farmer, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C.; Ari Risson Karpf; Amy Karpf; Jeremy M. Cerrutti; Christine E. Burke; Adam Charles Lease; Terc Law Office, P.C.; and Miguel Angel Terc. The defendants were divided into the KKC Defendants and the Terc Defendants.
Farmer alleged that some defendants had represented him in an earlier lawsuit against Hyde Your Eyes Optical Inc. He claimed that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud him and the district court by obtaining attorney fees and an outsized share of a settlement. His claims included alleged violations of New York Judiciary Law, New York false-advertising and deceptive-practices laws, and federal mail-fraud and wire-fraud statutes.
The defendants filed separate motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), seeking dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court considered the motions together.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The court treated the case primarily as a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Federal courts generally have jurisdiction based on either a federal question or complete diversity of citizenship, together with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
The court rejected diversity jurisdiction. Farmer did not allege that diversity supplied jurisdiction, and the complaint and docket indicated that Farmer and at least some defendants were citizens of New York. The court therefore concluded that complete diversity was absent.
The court also rejected federal-question jurisdiction. The only federal claims identified in the complaint were based on criminal statutes, including the mail-fraud and wire-fraud statutes. The court held that those statutes do not create a private right of action, meaning that an individual cannot sue under them directly. The court also noted that Farmer’s broad reference to numerous federal criminal statutes was too imprecise to satisfy pleading requirements.
The court acknowledged that existing Second Circuit authority might allow supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims based on jurisdiction from the earlier related lawsuit. But even assuming such jurisdiction existed, the court declined to exercise it because the claims in this case substantially outweighed the claims in the earlier lawsuit.
Disposition
Because the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed the action and did not reach the merits of the defendants’ other arguments. Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.