Suarez v. Marcus

Background

Susan Suarez, who represented herself, sued Sergiu Marcus, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, Retina Associates, and other listed defendants. The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and cited several federal and state laws, including provisions concerning medical care, civil rights, insurance, patents, and fraud. Suarez alleged that, on or about April 19, 2018, she underwent surgery at Retina Associates in New York, New York. She alleged that Marcus and others did not fully disclose the risks and life-threatening procedures involved. She further alleged that she lost vision, experienced permanent pain, and would have silicone and its harmful effects for the rest of her life. She sought $60 million in damages.

The court had granted Suarez permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under the statute governing such cases, the court was required to dismiss a complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Suarez’s citation of federal statutes, without supporting facts showing a federal-law claim, was not enough. The court found that Suarez alleged no facts suggesting that any of her claims arose under federal law and therefore held that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court considered whether it could hear the claims under diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Suarez stated that she was a citizen of New York, New York. Although she did not identify the citizenship of every defendant, the court stated that she appeared to allege that Marcus, Retina Associates, and Mount Sinai Beth Israel were also citizens of New York, New York. The court therefore held that diversity jurisdiction was also lacking.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to grant Suarez leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. The clerk was directed to mail Suarez a copy of the order and record service on the docket.