Shabtai v. Shabai

Background

Devora Shabtai brought this pro se action concerning a guardianship proceeding in Kings County involving her since-deceased mother. The defendants were Goldie Shabtai; New York Guardianship Services; David Blau; Jeremy Silbert; Mordechai Buls; Peter Strauss; Ken Barocas; Morgan Russell; and Daniel Miller. The opinion identifies Goldie Shabtai as the plaintiff's sister and identifies the other defendants by their roles in, or connections to, the guardianship proceeding. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated her civil rights and committed other misconduct, including trying to have her committed to a mental hospital and conspiring to use the guardianship proceeding to override her father's will and control her parent's estate. She sought millions of dollars in damages.

Federal Claims

The court treated the plaintiff's general civil-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Such a claim requires facts showing both a violation of a federal right and action by a person acting under color of state law, meaning with sufficient government involvement. The court held that the plaintiff did not provide facts suggesting the required state action. It explained that private attorneys generally are not state actors merely because they represent a party or were appointed by a court. It likewise held that the appointment of New York Guardianship Services, Jeremy Silbert, Ken Barocas, and Daniel Miller in the guardianship proceeding was not enough to establish state action.

The amended complaint also mentioned an Americans with Disabilities Act claim but gave no explanation or details about it. The court stated that Title I did not apply because the defendants were not covered employment entities in relation to the plaintiff; Title II did not apply because the defendants were not public entities; and the plaintiff made no specific allegation supporting a Title III claim. The court therefore dismissed the federal claims without prejudice.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court considered whether it had diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states and requires the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. The plaintiff alleged that she and all defendants except Goldie Shabtai resided in New York, but she did not allege that the parties were citizens of different states. The court therefore found no basis for diversity jurisdiction.

The court also considered supplemental jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear related state-law claims. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 30 days to file another amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiff and stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.