Amelio v. Fischer & Burstein, P.C.

Background

Carmine P. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, and Paul Amelio, three brothers appearing without lawyers, sued Fischer & Burstein, P.C., Harry H. Burstein, and Adriana Rodriguez. The plaintiffs asserted legal-malpractice claims arising from Alfonso’s divorce proceedings in New York County Supreme Court. They alleged that Burstein and the law firm retained Rodriguez to appear at a hearing, that Rodriguez was unfamiliar with Alfonso’s case and failed to present effective arguments, and that the defendants failed to communicate with Alfonso and Carmine about later proceedings. They claimed that the defendants’ conduct contributed to adverse divorce-court orders, attorney-fee obligations, contempt proceedings, and other harm. They sought money damages.

The court had previously allowed the plaintiffs to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. It then reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs relied on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete citizenship diversity between all plaintiffs and all defendants and a claimed amount exceeding $75,000. The court found that the complaint did not establish complete diversity. The plaintiffs did not allege the state citizenship of Carmine and Paul. They alleged that Alfonso was a resident of New York and Connecticut and that Fischer & Burstein, P.C., Burstein, and Rodriguez were citizens of New York. The court concluded that Alfonso and all defendants were citizens of New York, so complete diversity was absent.

The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction, which applies when a claim arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Although the plaintiffs did not rely on that basis, the court found that they alleged no facts showing that their claims arose under federal law. The court therefore concluded that it lacked both diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction.

Other Issues Mentioned

In a footnote, the court stated that, even if it had jurisdiction, Carmine and Paul appeared unable to assert legal-malpractice claims because the complaint alleged that Alfonso—not Carmine or Paul—had retained the defendants. The court also stated that the claims appeared untimely because the alleged malpractice occurred from March through August 2016, while the action was filed on August 10, 2020. The court did not base its final disposition on a merits determination of those issues.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), and that all other pending matters be terminated. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.