Todie-Reyes v. Orellana
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-10444
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Todie-Reyes v. Orellana, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint because the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Eugene A. Todie-Reyes’s federal lawsuit against Cinthia Carolina Reyes Orellana was dismissed, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint or proceed without prepaying appeal fees.
What happened
In Todie-Reyes v. Orellana, Eugene A. Todie-Reyes sued Cinthia Carolina Reyes Orellana over events that included allegations involving an order of protection and claims connected to Macy’s Department Store. He sought $3 million, changes to the order-of-protection system, wage garnishment, or deportation.
The court ruled that the complaint did not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. It did not identify a claim created by federal law, and the court could not order changes to the state-court system. Diversity jurisdiction also was unavailable because the complaint indicated that both parties resided in New York, and it did not provide sufficient allegations supporting the required jurisdictional amount.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be corrected. The court also denied the plaintiff’s permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Todie-Reyes v. Orellana · No. 1:21-cv-10444
- Laura Swain
- July 18, 2022
Background
Eugene A. Todie-Reyes, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Cinthia Carolina Reyes Orellana. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The complaint described events occurring at various locations and involving the defendant, an order of protection directing him to stay away from her, and allegations connected to Macy’s Department Store. He requested, among other things, $3 million, changes to the state system for issuing orders of protection, wage garnishment, or deportation.
Jurisdiction
Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court considered two possible bases.
For federal-question jurisdiction, the complaint had to show that the claims arose under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court found that Todie-Reyes did not plead facts showing that his claims against Orellana arose under federal law. To the extent he asked the federal court to reevaluate the state-court order-of-protection system, the court explained that federal courts cannot compel state-court action.
For diversity jurisdiction, the parties must be citizens of different states, and the claim must meet the statutory amount requirement. The court found that the complaint indicated that both Todie-Reyes and Orellana resided in New York, which prevented complete diversity. The court also found that, despite the $3 million request, the complaint did not adequately allege that the claims satisfied the jurisdictional amount requirement.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to grant leave to amend because the jurisdictional defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.