Chan v. Ramdhaney

Background

Lap-Sun Chan brought this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He alleged that Susan Ramdhaney, MD; Manhattan Gastroenterology; Luis Castelo; and Manhattan Speciality Care violated his rights. According to the amended complaint, Dr. Ramdhaney ordered the “wrong blood test.” When Chan contacted the office for clarification, he alleged that Ramdhaney’s employees disrespected and insulted him and did not return his calls. He also alleged that the office called him about unpaid medical bills, after which he screamed at the employee and demanded that Dr. Ramdhaney punish the employee.

The court had dismissed Chan’s original complaint on June 21, 2022, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It gave him 30 days to replead a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal law regulating certain debt-collection conduct. Chan filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2022, but its allegations were virtually identical to those in the original complaint. The amended complaint stated that he was asserting claims under Article 131-A, Section 6530 of the New York Education Law, which defines professional misconduct in the medical profession for various state-law purposes.

Federal Claims

The court dismissed any Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims for failure to state a claim, relying on the reasons given in its June 21 order. The opinion does not repeat those reasons in full.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court treated Chan’s reference to Article 131-A, Section 6530 as an assertion of state-law claims. It stated that Chan alleged that he and the defendants were residents of New York State, so diversity jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states—was unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims had been dismissed. It relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and explained that federal courts generally decline to retain state-law claims when the federal claims disappear early in the case.

Further Amendment and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend. Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, the court stated that Chan had already received that opportunity and that the defects could not be cured by another amendment.

The court dismissed Chan’s federal-law claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Chan might be asserting, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.