Siguencia Mendez v. A. L. Contractor NY

Background

Holger Siguencia Mendez filed claims involving federal and state wage-and-hour laws and age-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion states that Mendez did not request a summons for A. L. Contractor NY and had not filed proof that either defendant had been served by the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

The court had warned Mendez that the case would be dismissed without prejudice unless he filed proof of service or showed good cause for failing to serve the defendants. Mendez later filed proof that he had served Luis Martinez Ponce on March 13, 2023, using a method authorized by New York law. Ponce's response deadline passed, and he had not answered, filed a motion, or otherwise responded.

Rulings concerning the defendants

The court dismissed Mendez's claims against A. L. Contractor NY without prejudice under Rule 4(m) because Mendez had not requested a summons, filed proof of service, requested an extension, or shown good cause. The Clerk was instructed to terminate A. L. Contractor NY as a defendant.

As to Ponce, the court did not enter default judgment. Instead, provided Ponce remained in default, it ordered Mendez to seek a certificate of default by April 25, 2023, and then move for default judgment by May 9, 2023, using the procedure required by the court's individual practices. The court warned that failing to meet either deadline could result in dismissal of the claims against Ponce without prejudice for failure to prosecute or failure to follow court orders.

Age-discrimination claims and jurisdiction

Mendez alleged that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over his federal wage-and-hour claims and supplemental jurisdiction over his state wage-and-hour and age-discrimination claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court stated that it was not clear from the complaint whether the age-discrimination claims were sufficiently related to the federal wage-and-hour claims to be part of the same constitutional case or controversy.

Because federal courts must independently examine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear a dispute—the court ordered Mendez to show cause in a written submission of no more than three pages why the age-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion did not decide the merits of the wage-and-hour or age-discrimination claims.