Cullum v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.

Background

Sandra L. Cullum and Deirdre Saleh brought this pro se action against Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Corp.; Wyndham Destinations Inc.; Geoffrey A. Ballotti; Wyndham Hotels (WH) & Resorts, Inc.; Elisabeth Gale doing business as Wyndham Corporate Office & Headquarters; and Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions. The plaintiffs invoked federal-question jurisdiction and cited the Truth in Lending Act, federal lending regulations, and various New York statutes. They alleged that the defendants used high-pressure sales tactics, misrepresented the timeshare ownership and investment opportunity, failed to disclose maintenance and assessment fees and financing terms, and failed to disclose a right to cancel. They sought individual damages, proposed class relief, return of timeshare-related payments, and other forms of judgment.

Criminal-prosecution requests

The court dismissed, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, any claims seeking the criminal investigation or prosecution of the defendants. The court explained that the decision to bring a criminal case belongs to prosecutors, not private plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs cannot direct prosecutors to initiate criminal proceedings.

Pleading deficiencies

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to give a short and plain statement containing enough facts to make entitlement to relief plausible and to give each defendant a fair understanding of the allegations. The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations were generalized conclusions lacking specific factual support, so the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, the court granted them leave to amend. The court required the amended complaint to identify the specific facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including the relevant people and their titles, what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate dates and locations of events, the plaintiffs’ injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims the plaintiffs wanted to retain had to be repeated.

Venue

The court also held that the complaint did not establish that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue. The plaintiffs alleged that they lived in Brooklyn and that defendants or relevant events were located in or occurred in New York, New Jersey, and Florida, but they did not provide enough information to show that a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York or that another statutory basis for venue applied. The court required the amended complaint to allege facts establishing that venue in this court was proper.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The filing had to be captioned “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 1:22-CV-9700 (RA). The defendants were not required to respond until after an amended complaint was filed. The court stated that it might dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim if the plaintiffs did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.