Harris v. Belleclaire Hotel LLC

Background

Kadar A. Harris brought this action without a lawyer against Belleclaire Hotel LLC. Harris alleged that he lived at the Belleclaire Hotel and that, beginning in May 2020, construction and new residents created dangerous conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that hotel staff did not warn him or his roommate about the hotel’s participation in a city program and did not provide personal protective equipment. He also alleged that the conditions caused severe emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish requiring psychological treatment. He sought $50 million in damages and described the alleged conduct as negligence and a lack of reasonable care.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or disputes between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000. Harris invoked federal-question jurisdiction but alleged that the hotel violated “residential liability laws.” The court found that his allegations did not identify a federal cause of action. It specifically noted that he did not allege either state action or a violation of federal or constitutional law, as would be required for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The court also found no basis for diversity jurisdiction because Harris alleged that both he and the defendant resided in New York. The court stated that it was taking no position on the merits of any claims Harris might pursue in state court.

Claims on Behalf of Other Residents

The court said the complaint could be read to assert claims on behalf of Harris’s roommate and other hotel residents. Because Harris had not alleged that he was an attorney, the court ruled that he could not assert claims on behalf of other individuals.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Harris was proceeding without a lawyer, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts supporting a claim within the court’s jurisdiction. If he did not file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint was insufficient, the court stated that it would enter judgment and close the matter. The court denied the request for issuance of a summons without prejudice to reconsideration if Harris submitted an amended complaint. Judge James Oetken also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.