Tarhaka v. eBay
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-02963
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Tarhaka v. eBay, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ra Tarhaka’s lawsuit against eBay and the United States Post Office was dismissed; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Tarhaka v. eBay, Ra Tarhaka sued eBay and the United States Post Office over shoes he says he ordered but did not receive. He sought $70,000 in damages and represented himself without a lawyer.
Tarhaka cited federal fraud statutes, but the court explained that those criminal statutes do not allow private lawsuits. He also did not show that the case met the requirements for federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and the amount at issue.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and declined to allow an amended complaint. The court also denied fee-free filing status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Tarhaka v. eBay · No. 1:21-cv-02963
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
Ra Tarhaka, appearing without a lawyer and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued eBay and the United States Post Office. He alleged that he ordered a pair of shoes, apparently through eBay, but did not receive them on the day they were supposed to be delivered. After asking about the shipment at a United States Post Office location and contacting eBay’s resolution center, he received no response. He sought $70,000 in damages.
Tarhaka invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, which criminalize certain fraud involving the mail and electronic communications. The opinion notes that these statutes do not create a private right of action, meaning they do not authorize an individual to sue for damages under them. Tarhaka did not identify another federal law supporting his claims.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Merely checking a form box invoking federal jurisdiction is not enough. Because the cited fraud statutes do not provide a private cause of action, and no other basis for federal-question jurisdiction was apparent, the court concluded that Tarhaka had not shown federal-question jurisdiction.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires different state citizenship between the parties and a claim exceeding $75,000. Tarhaka stated that he resides in New York and gave New York addresses for both defendants. The court further concluded that his requested $70,000 did not meet the $75,000 jurisdictional amount.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Tarhaka fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.