Mendoza v. Mladinich

Background

Rudy Mendoza, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Robert Mladinich. Mendoza alleged that he sent Mladinich a $500 check as a retainer for private-investigation services. He asked Mladinich to gather public information about a 2019 incident, obtain contact information for two people who might serve as intermediaries or expert witnesses, and provide transcripts from Mendoza’s criminal case. Mendoza alleged that Mladinich did not timely perform these tasks, and that the delay harmed his ability to file post-conviction motions and address a federal criminal investigation. Mendoza sought $250,000 in damages and reparations.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Mendoza 30 days to file an amended complaint showing diversity jurisdiction. Mendoza then filed an amended complaint.

Court’s analysis

Diversity jurisdiction generally requires complete diversity: no plaintiff and defendant may be citizens of the same state. For an individual, citizenship ordinarily depends on domicile, meaning the person’s fixed home and intended permanent return. The court noted that a prisoner generally is presumed to retain the domicile held before incarceration unless that presumption is rebutted.

Mendoza appeared to allege that he was a citizen of Chicago, Illinois. He also alleged that he was born and raised in New York City, later relocated to Chicago, and intended to return there after release. But Mendoza stated that he did not know what city or state Mladinich lived in and knew only that Mladinich’s office was in New York City. The court held that Mendoza had not alleged facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states.

The court also observed that Mendoza asserted a breach-of-contract claim seeking mostly punitive and emotional-distress damages. It explained that punitive damages generally are not available for breach of contract, and emotional-distress damages are available only in limited circumstances.

Disposition

Because Mendoza did not establish diversity jurisdiction, Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).