Mendoza v. Mladinich
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10010
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Mendoza v. Mladinich, Judge Stanton dismissed the suit for lack of federal jurisdiction but allowed Mendoza 30 days to amend.
Rudy Mendoza's action was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but he was allowed 30 days to amend the complaint. Robert Mladinich remains the named defendant in the action.
What happened
In Mendoza v. Mladinich, Rudy Mendoza, who was representing himself while incarcerated, sued private investigator Robert Mladinich for $100,000. Mendoza alleged that Mladinich failed to obtain court transcripts and expert information after Mendoza paid him $500.
The court treated the allegations as a state-law contract claim brought under diversity jurisdiction, which requires parties to be citizens of different states and a claimed amount above $75,000. The court said Mendoza did not allege his own state citizenship and did not provide facts supporting his claim for $100,000 in damages.
Judge Stanton dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction but granted Mendoza 30 days to file an amended complaint showing that diversity jurisdiction exists. If Mendoza does not amend within that period, the court will enter judgment dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Mendoza v. Mladinich · No. 1:20-cv-10010
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
Rudy Mendoza, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Robert Mladinich, whom the opinion describes as a private investigator located in New York, New York. Mendoza sought $100,000 in damages. He alleged that, while incarcerated, he paid Mladinich $500 to obtain transcripts from Mendoza's criminal case and information from two experts. Mendoza alleged that Mladinich did not respond to his calls or letters, later sought another $200 for the transcripts, and provided only one of the requested transcripts after Mendoza threatened to sue.
Mendoza alleged that Mladinich's conduct caused problems with Mendoza's posttrial motions, sentencing, appeal, and planned civil actions. The court construed these allegations as asserting a state-law breach-of-contract claim and as invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Analysis
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship—that is, no plaintiff and defendant may be citizens of the same state—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. For an individual, citizenship generally depends on domicile rather than the place of incarceration.
The court found that Mendoza appeared to allege that Mladinich was a New York citizen, but Mendoza did not state his own state citizenship. The court also found that Mendoza did not allege facts supporting the claimed amount of $100,000. Although he sought that amount, the complaint stated that it was intended to cover damages and deter future conduct without providing facts supporting that demand. The court therefore concluded that Mendoza had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It did not reach the merits of Mendoza's contract allegations. Because Mendoza was proceeding without a lawyer, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts that clearly show diversity jurisdiction. If he does not file an amended complaint within that period, the court will enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order was signed by United States District Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.