Dos Santos v. Assurant, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-06368
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Andreia Rosa Dos Santos v. Assurant, Judge Swain dismissed the federal claims and ordered a response before deciding the remaining state-law claims.
Andreia Rosa Dos Santos’s federal copyright and Visual Artists Rights Act claims were dismissed. Her state-law negligence claims were not finally dismissed in this order but were subject to a required declaration addressing federal jurisdiction and timeliness. Assurant, Inc., Falcon Shield Property Preservation LLC, and the unidentified defendants were affected as the defendants in the action.
What happened
In Andreia Rosa Dos Santos v. Assurant, Andreia Rosa Dos Santos, representing herself, claimed that defendants destroyed her artwork and violated federal copyright protections and artists’ rights, along with committing negligence. She sought money damages for the destroyed paintings.
The court dismissed the copyright and Visual Artists Rights Act claims because the allegations described destruction of the artwork, not unauthorized copying, improper claims of authorship, or violation of the right to be credited. The court also questioned whether it had authority to hear the negligence claims because the complaint did not adequately show that the parties were citizens of different states.
Judge Swain ordered Dos Santos to submit a written declaration within 30 days explaining why the negligence claims should remain in federal court and why they were not filed too late. The court said those claims would be dismissed without prejudice if she did not respond adequately, and it denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Dos Santos v. Assurant, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06368
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 17, 2021
Background
Andreia Rosa Dos Santos, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Assurant, Inc., Falcon Shield Property Preservation LLC, and unidentified defendants. She asserted claims under the Copyright Act and the Visual Artists Rights Act, as well as state-law negligence claims. She alleged that, after she was evicted from a home in Union, New Jersey, Falcon moved hundreds of her original artworks to a storage unit and that the artwork was later discarded and destroyed. She sought money damages for each destroyed painting.
The court had previously allowed Dos Santos to proceed without paying filing fees. Because she was proceeding without paying those fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.
Federal claims
The court dismissed Dos Santos’s Copyright Act and Visual Artists Rights Act claims for failure to state a claim. It explained that a copyright-infringement claim required allegations identifying the specific works, ownership of properly registered copyrights, and the acts and timing of infringement. Even assuming that Dos Santos owned valid, properly registered copyrights, the complaint alleged removal and destruction of the artwork, not unauthorized copying.
The court also found that the allegations did not suggest a violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act. That law protects, among other things, an artist’s right to claim authorship and to prevent others from using the artist’s name on work the artist did not create. The complaint did not allege that defendants improperly claimed authorship or violated Dos Santos’s right of attribution.
State-law claims and jurisdiction
The negligence claims arose under state law. After dismissing the federal claims, the court stated that it would generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—when no federal claims remain, unless another basis for federal jurisdiction exists.
The court considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The complaint did not clearly establish Dos Santos’s domicile because it stated that she had resided in New Jersey but was currently in New York. It also did not provide enough information about the citizenship of each defendant. In particular, it did not allege the citizenship of Falcon Shield’s members, which is required for determining a limited liability company’s citizenship.
The court therefore directed Dos Santos to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction because the complaint failed to show complete diversity. If she could establish diversity jurisdiction, the court also directed her to explain why the negligence claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The court stated that New York generally imposes a three-year limitations period for negligence claims and found that the alleged destruction occurred on or about April 19, 2017, while the action was filed on July 26, 2021. The court found that Dos Santos’s allegations that she was scared, in shock, and affected by the pandemic did not show compelling circumstances for extending the filing deadline.
Order and effect
The court ordered Dos Santos to file a written declaration within 30 days. If she did not file one, or if it did not show that her citizenship differed from that of every defendant, the court stated that it would dismiss the state-law negligence claim without prejudice. If she established diversity jurisdiction, she was also required to address the timeliness issue. The court did not issue summonses at that time.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.