Chan v. Ramdhaney

Background

Lap-Sun Chan filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He alleged that Susan Ramdhaney, MD; Manhattan Gastroenterology; Luis Castelo; and Manhattan Specialty Care violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and committed medical malpractice under state law. Chan alleged that, after a dispute involving a blood test and complaints about staff conduct, a woman from Dr. Ramdhaney’s office called him several times seeking payment of unpaid medical bills. He sought $1 million in damages.

FDCPA claim

The court explained that the FDCPA regulates certain debt collectors’ conduct in collecting consumer debts, including deceptive, harassing, abusive, or oppressive conduct. The court found that Chan had not alleged facts suggesting that any defendant qualified as a debt collector under the statute. It also found that he had not alleged facts showing that any defendant engaged in conduct prohibited by the FDCPA. In addition, he did not allege that an attorney represented him regarding the debt, that defendants contacted him at his workplace, that they called at unusual hours, or that he had notified defendants in writing that he refused to pay or wanted communications to stop.

The court therefore dismissed the FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Because Chan was representing himself and might be able to correct the defects, the court granted him 30 days’ leave to replead a viable FDCPA claim. Any amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and would need to include all facts and claims Chan wanted the court to consider.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

The court stated that Chan’s medical-malpractice claims arose under state law. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are brought—because it had dismissed the federal claims at an early stage. The opinion also states that Chan alleged that he and the defendants were citizens of New York State, so diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction was unavailable for the state-law claims.

Mailing address and amendment requirements

The court discussed multiple returned or undeliverable mailings in Chan’s cases and stated that he appeared to have provided incorrect, obsolete, or potentially fictitious post-office-box addresses. If Chan filed an amended complaint, the court required him to provide a current and accurate mailing address. The amended complaint also had to provide, among other information, relevant people’s names and titles, descriptions of the events and defendants’ actions, the injuries claimed, and the relief sought.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, granted 30 days’ leave to replead a viable FDCPA claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.