Sander v. Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturers

Background

R.M. Sander brought this self-represented lawsuit after an electric space heater caught fire on March 29, 2020, when she lived at 507 South 7th Avenue in Mount Vernon, New York. She alleged that she bought the heater because “Hector, her landlord,” did not provide heat. She alleged that the fire caused third- and fourth-degree burns and that she spent two months in intensive care at Cornell Medical Center.

Sander sued Mr. Heater Electric Space Heater Manufacturer, Westchester County, the City of Mount Vernon, and “Mr. Hector, Landlord.” She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain violations of federal rights by state actors, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She also asserted products-liability and other state-law claims against Mr. Heater. She sought $68 million in damages and an order requiring Mount Vernon to provide her with a new apartment.

The complaint stated that the Mount Vernon Buildings Department had received complaints that Hector was not providing heat but had not taken action. The complaint also suggested that Sander may previously have litigated matters arising from the same events in state court. The court said it could not determine whether claim preclusion—also called res judicata, a rule that can bar issues that were or could have been decided in an earlier case—applied without more information.

Section 1983 claims

The court held that Sander had not alleged a constitutional violation. It also held that the Section 1983 claims failed for additional reasons. Sander did not allege that Mr. Heater or Hector was a state actor or acted under state authority. As to Westchester County and Mount Vernon, she did not allege that a county or city policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her rights.

The court therefore dismissed Sander’s Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Title VII claims

The court explained that Title VII addresses discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sander did not allege an employer-employee relationship with any defendant, and the complaint contained no facts suggesting that she was discriminated against because of a characteristic protected by Title VII.

The court therefore dismissed Sander’s Title VII claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed Westchester County, the City of Mount Vernon, and Hector from the case.

Diversity jurisdiction and state-law claims

The court concluded that it had diversity jurisdiction over Sander’s state-law claims against Mr. Heater. Sander alleged that she was a New York citizen and that Mr. Heater was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Ohio. After the other defendants were dismissed, the court found complete diversity. Because Sander sought $68 million and alleged serious fire-related injuries, the court assumed at this stage that the amount-in-controversy requirement exceeded $75,000.

The court did not decide the merits of Sander’s products-liability or other state-law claims. Instead, it directed her to provide additional facts supporting those claims and to explain the nature and status of any prior litigation concerning the events.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Sander was proceeding without an attorney and might be able to state valid state-law claims against Mr. Heater, the court granted her 60 days to amend. The amended complaint had to detail those claims and provide information about any earlier litigation. The deadline was February 22, 2022.

The order states that the court dismissed Sander’s Section 1983 and Title VII claims, granted leave to file an amended complaint against Mr. Heater, and directed the Clerk to terminate Westchester County, the City of Mount Vernon, and Hector. No defendant was required to answer at that time. The court also stated that failure to timely amend, absent good cause, could lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a court order. It denied the ability to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.