Toribio Abreu v. The Portela Law Firm, P.C.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02512
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Toribio Abreu v. The Portela Law Firm, Judge Swain dismissed the fee-refund case for lack of jurisdiction and denied fee-free appeal status.
The dismissal ended RAMEL ARGENIS TORIBIO ABREU's federal action seeking a $17,000 refund from THE PORTELA LAW FIRM P.C. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Toribio Abreu v. The Portela Law Firm involved a $17,000 request for a refund from a $15,000 retainer paid for representation in a state criminal case. Toribio Abreu said the firm failed to communicate clearly and ended the agreement.
The court ruled that the complaint did not present a federal claim. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the listed addresses appeared to be in New York and the requested amount was below $75,000. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Toribio Abreu v. The Portela Law Firm, P.C. · No. 1:22-cv-02512
- Laura Swain
- July 11, 2022
Background
Plaintiff, who the opinion says was detained at the Westchester Department of Corrections, sued The Portela Law Firm P.C. He alleged that he hired the firm on December 20, 2021, to represent him in a pending state-court criminal matter and agreed to pay a $15,000 retainer. He claimed that, after receiving the retainer, the firm failed to notify him of changes to court dates and that he had difficulty contacting the firm. After a January 21, 2022 meeting, the firm requested a second monthly payment of $2,000. Plaintiff then ended the agreement and sought $17,000 as a refund for work he said was not provided.
The court had previously allowed Plaintiff to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It screened the complaint under the statutes governing prisoner complaints and considered whether it had authority to hear the case.
Jurisdiction
Plaintiff invoked federal-question jurisdiction, which allows federal courts to hear claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that the complaint alleged no violation of federal law. Instead, the claim sought repayment of a legal retainer and was a contract dispute arising under state law.
The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can apply when opposing parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is at stake. The court stated that Plaintiff and the professional corporation appeared to have New York addresses, suggesting that the required citizenship difference was absent. It further held that, even if the parties were citizens of different states, Plaintiff sought only $17,000, below the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold.
Ruling
Because Plaintiff had not shown either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.