Hatwood v. Ricotta
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05528
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hatwood v. Ricotta, Judge Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Annette Hatwood’s action against Thomas Ricotta and Ricotta & Marks P.C. was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Hatwood v. Ricotta, Annette Hatwood, representing herself, sued Thomas Ricotta and Ricotta & Marks P.C. She alleged that she hired them over disability discrimination involving her employer, but they stopped communicating after her email account was hacked, harming her job prospects. She sought payment based on ten years of salary.
Hatwood identified her rights as “civil rights,” but the court found that she alleged no facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction. The court also found no diversity jurisdiction because Hatwood and Ricotta & Marks P.C. were both identified as New York citizens. The opinion does not state Thomas Ricotta’s state citizenship.
Judge Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3) and denied Hatwood fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hatwood v. Ricotta · No. 1:22-cv-05528
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
Annette Hatwood, who was representing herself, filed an action against Thomas Ricotta and Ricotta & Marks P.C. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified “civil rights” in response to the complaint’s question about violated federal rights. She sought “10 year[s] of what [her] job pa[i]d [her] as a salary. . . . $52,000 + 10 years.”
Hatwood alleged that she retained Ricotta and the law firm on August 6, 2020, to pursue legal relief against her employer for disability discrimination. She communicated with them by email until her email account was hacked. Ricotta sent her employer a letter stating that he represented her, but Hatwood alleged that she then received no assistance. She provided a new email address, but alleged that neither Ricotta nor the firm used it to communicate with her. She claimed that their actions or inaction cost her job, and alleged that Ricotta lied to, manipulated, and took money from her. She also reported them to a bar association.
Jurisdictional analysis
The court explained that federal district courts generally have subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy. A court must dismiss an action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court held that Hatwood’s reference to federal-question jurisdiction and “civil rights” was not enough. It found that she alleged no facts showing that her claims arose under the Constitution or federal law. The court also considered that she might be attempting to assert state-law claims, including legal-malpractice claims. It held that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because Hatwood identified herself as a New York citizen and identified Ricotta & Marks P.C. as incorporated and principally located in New York. The opinion does not specify Thomas Ricotta’s state citizenship.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court did not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hatwood permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judgment was ordered to issue.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.