Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09784
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lue v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Failla dismissed the case without prejudice because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Lue’s case against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the individual defendants was dismissed without prejudice because the federal court found no subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion did not decide the merits of the defamation claims.
What happened
In Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the Second Circuit sent the case back to the district court to determine whether the parties had completely different citizenships for federal diversity jurisdiction. Defendants confirmed that three individual defendants were citizens of New Jersey, as was Lue.
The court ruled that complete diversity was absent, so it could not hear the case under the diversity-jurisdiction statute. It also found no basis for federal-question jurisdiction because Lue’s amended complaint alleged only state-law defamation claims.
Judge Katherine Failla dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The detailed version
- Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:19-cv-09784
- Katherine Failla
- June 3, 2022
Background
The Second Circuit issued a mandate sending the case back to the district court for further proceedings on whether complete diversity of citizenship existed between the parties. Before that mandate, Lue stated that at least two defendants lived permanently in her home state of New Jersey when the lawsuit was served. Defendants later confirmed that three individual defendants were residents of New Jersey.
Jurisdiction
Federal district courts have limited authority to hear cases. Lue sought to rely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That statute requires complete diversity of citizenship—meaning that no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant—and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court found that complete diversity did not exist because Lue and three individual defendants were citizens of New Jersey.
The court also considered federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, taking account of Lue’s status as a person representing herself. Federal-question jurisdiction applies when a claim arises under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that Lue did not allege that her claims arose under federal law and that her amended complaint asserted only claims based on state defamation law.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla concluded that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), a court must dismiss an action whenever it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. The court therefore dismissed Lue’s case without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.