Calderon v. Bircea
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07745
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Calderon v. Bircea, Judge Swain dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Calderon 30 days to amend.
Ana Calderon’s action against Sorin Bircea was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but Calderon was allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing diversity jurisdiction.
What happened
In Calderon v. Bircea, Ana Calderon, representing herself, sued Sorin Bircea over alleged incorrect diagnoses and treatment that she said caused serious mental and physical effects. She sought damages and an order for an evaluation and other relief.
The court treated Calderon’s claims as state-law claims, such as medical malpractice and product liability, rather than federal claims. It found that she had not shown that she and Bircea were citizens of different states or that her claims exceeded $75,000, as required for the court to hear state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed Calderon 30 days to file an amended complaint showing that diversity jurisdiction exists. The court also denied her fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calderon v. Bircea · No. 1:22-cv-07745
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Ana Calderon, who was representing herself, filed an action against Sorin Bircea. The complaint alleged that, during visits in October 2019, November 2019, and January 2021, Bircea diagnosed her with the wrong illness and provided incorrect treatment and medication. Calderon alleged that the medication worsened her condition and caused hallucinations, disorganized speech, paranoia, effects on her sex life, memory problems, and other health effects. She sought damages and injunctive relief, including an evaluation and requested modifications of what she called a civil disorder.
Calderon invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified the bases of her claims as “pharmaceutical personal injury, product liability, [and] medical malpractice.” The court construed the complaint as asserting state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction rather than claims arising under federal law. The court had previously allowed Calderon to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Jurisdictional Analysis
Federal district courts may hear state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction only when the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court concluded that Calderon did not provide enough facts to establish either requirement. She identified herself as a citizen of the Bronx, New York, but did not specify Bircea’s state citizenship. The complaint appeared to allege that Bircea’s office was in Astoria, Queens County, New York, and included statements suggesting that he was connected to New York. Calderon also did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because Calderon was representing herself, Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted her leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days alleging facts that would establish diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that if she did not timely amend or show good cause for failing to do so, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calderon fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.