Baker v. El Ghanayan

Background

Ralph Baker, proceeding without a lawyer, paid the filing fee and brought a complaint seeking to stop Citywide Self Storage from terminating his rental agreement and removing photography equipment and other personal property from his storage units. Baker alleged that he had rented storage space from Citywide for 18 months, added telephone lines and office equipment with Citywide's approval, and operated his photography business there. He alleged that Citywide notified him that the lease would end on October 31, 2020, because the unit had been set up as a livable space. He also alleged that he could not find financially suitable replacement workspace during the pandemic and stood to lose more than $40,000 in investments.

The rental agreement said that the unit could not be used for residential purposes, required 30 days' notice before termination, and required disputes under the lease to go through binding arbitration. The complaint did not identify a basis for federal jurisdiction. It named Frederick Elghanayan as the sole defendant, but did not clearly explain the connection between Elghanayan and Citywide Self Storage. Baker later renewed his request for a temporary restraining order, again seeking to prevent Citywide from ending the rental agreement and removing his property.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over cases involving a federal question or cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is at stake.

The court rejected federal-question jurisdiction. Although Baker referred to his “civil rights” and the First Amendment in his temporary-restraining-order papers, the court found no facts in his submissions suggesting a claim arising under federal law. The court explained that merely referring to federal jurisdiction or constitutional rights does not create federal jurisdiction.

The court also rejected diversity jurisdiction. It stated that Baker indicated in the complaint that both he and Elghanayan resided in New York, which precluded the complete difference in state citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction. The court further stated that Baker did not allege facts demonstrating that the amount in dispute satisfied the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to give Baker permission to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be corrected through amendment. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it denied Baker's motion for a temporary restraining order as moot and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. The order also recommended that Baker contact the NYLAG Legal Clinic for advice about his options.