Pedotti v. Adler

Background

Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti II, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint against Randolph K. Adler, Jr.; Ascending Ventures; Jose T. Baer; Nuot Saratz; Gloria Starr Kins; Society and Diplomatic Review; “The United Nations Headquarters (International Territory)”; “The United Nations Geneva”; and the Teamsters Union. She asserted claims described as misrepresentation, legal malpractice, and embezzlement, and sought “$900,000,000,000 Billion” in damages. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The amended complaint did not state when or where the events occurred and did not identify a federal law supporting the claims. It included allegations that Adler misrepresented her legal and medical interests, that a humanitarian-focused entity was stolen and laundered, and that Adler made allegedly false statements about her. After filing the amended complaint, Pedotti submitted 27 additional motions, letters, and requests, many of which the court viewed as unrelated to the claims.

Jurisdiction Analysis

Federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court concluded that Pedotti had not identified a federal cause of action or facts suggesting a plausible federal claim. It also concluded that she had not alleged the citizenship of herself or any defendant, as required for jurisdiction based on different-state citizenship. Although she claimed damages above $75,000, the court stated that it was unclear whether she could recover more than the jurisdictional minimum.

Order and Effect

The court did not dismiss the action at this stage. Instead, it directed Pedotti to show cause by filing a written declaration within 30 days explaining why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The declaration had to provide facts showing either that the claims arose under federal law or that the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court stated that failure to submit a declaration, or submission of one that did not establish jurisdiction, would result in dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also warned that continued submission of unrelated or procedurally improper documents could lead to restrictions on filing additional documents in the action without permission. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain.