Smith v. Mount Sinai Hospital, St. Luke

Background

Rita R. Smith, representing herself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, sued Mount Sinai Hospital and several hospital employees. She alleged that, in January 2016, she was falsely accused of shoving a coworker at the hospital. She said the hospital’s Labor Relations office ordered her fired and required her to sign a “last chance agreement,” while the coworker was not required to do so. Smith alleged that she was treated differently because the coworker had family members who also worked at the hospital. Smith sought back pay and other monetary damages.

The court had previously directed Smith to amend her complaint. It explained that, to assert a federal employment-discrimination claim, she needed to allege facts showing discrimination or retaliation based on a characteristic protected by federal law. The court also explained that state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction required allegations showing that the parties were citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 was in dispute.

Amended Complaint and Jurisdiction

In her amended complaint, Smith asserted claims described as “slander, libel, harassment, protected activity harassment, psychological harassment, stay away provision negligence, bribery.” She invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The court concluded that her allegations did not identify a federal law that the defendants had violated. Although she provided more detail about the events leading to her termination, she did not allege that the firing violated federal law.

Smith also added state-law claims, including libel, slander, harassment, and negligence. The court concluded that she did not allege the facts needed to establish diversity jurisdiction or the required amount in controversy. Subject-matter jurisdiction means the court’s legal power to hear a case. Because Smith did not establish either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, the court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed Smith’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself did not bar a later filing, although the court did not grant permission for another amendment in this action. The court denied further leave to amend because it determined that the defects in the amended complaint appeared incapable of being cured by another amendment.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.