Vicioso v. Sharinn

Background

Grisselle Vicioso, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Scott Sharinn; The J.D. Stuart Law Group, LLC; Unifund CCR Partners; and Henry Dale, identified in the caption as Marshal of the City of New York. She described her claims as involving trespass, forgery, fraudulent instruments, and bad faith in obtaining a default judgment and writ of execution. She sought an order declaring void a $14,957.18 income execution judgment entered in New York City Civil Court on June 19, 2006, in favor of Unifund CCR Partners.

Vicioso alleged that she did not owe the debt and that the judgment was based on unverified fraudulent documents and unsworn testimony. She also alleged that she sent Sharinn a written rebuttal and notice of default, which Sharinn did not answer. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the motions concerning Henry Dale also raised insufficient service of process. Vicioso did not respond to the motions. The court previously denied her motion for default judgment because the defendants had appeared and filed motions to dismiss. The court also denied an earlier request to set a hearing date. On April 21, 2022, she filed another motion to set a hearing date.

Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal district courts generally have diversity jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000, and federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law. The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts establishing federal jurisdiction.

The court held that Vicioso did not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. She did not allege complete diversity among the parties, and the information in her complaint did not establish the citizenship of the parties. The court noted that a mailing address does not establish a person’s legal home for diversity purposes, that Vicioso listed a New York residence on her civil cover sheet, and that she provided no information about the members and citizenship of The J.D. Stuart Law Group, LLC. She also provided no information about Unifund CCR Partners. The court therefore found no complete diversity.

The court also held that Vicioso did not adequately plead the required amount in controversy. Although she requested $35,000 multiplied by treble damages and punitive damages, she alleged no facts showing that such a remedy was legally available. The court therefore did not accept that demand as sufficient to establish the jurisdictional amount.

Vicioso also failed to plead federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint invoked the Constitution of New York, not federal law, and did not assert a claim created by federal law or one necessarily requiring resolution of a substantial federal question. The court stated that the complaint raised only a state-law question, if any.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Vicioso had not established federal jurisdiction. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. Vicioso was given 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint; if she did not do so, the court stated that it would close the case. The court denied the motion at Docket No. 37 to set a hearing date.