Perez v. Empire City Casino

Background

Juana Perez appeared without a lawyer and sued Empire City Casino, LaGuardia Airport, and Burlington Stores. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction on the complaint form, but when asked which federal constitutional or statutory rights had been violated, she wrote, “the case is New York.” Her allegations concerned a flight arriving from Miami and events at LaGuardia Airport, gambling-related events at Empire City Casino, and an incident at a Burlington store. She left blank the portions of the complaint asking her to describe her injuries and the relief she sought. She also attached a Social Security Administration letter and a New Jersey civil-case form identifying a personal-injury action.

The court had previously allowed Perez to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Rule 8 and Rule 20

The court held that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because it did not contain enough factual information to suggest a plausible legal claim against any defendant. The court also held that it did not comply with Rule 20 because the allegations did not show that the claims against Empire City Casino, LaGuardia Airport, and Burlington Stores arose from the same transaction or occurrence or involved common questions of law or fact.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court concluded that Perez had not established federal-question jurisdiction. Although she checked the federal-question box, she did not identify a federal constitutional or statutory right, and the allegations did not suggest a viable federal-law claim.

The court also concluded that Perez had not established diversity jurisdiction. Perez alleged that she was a resident of New Jersey and provided addresses for Empire City Casino and a Burlington store in New York, but she did not identify the corporate defendants’ states of incorporation or principal places of business. She provided no additional citizenship information for LaGuardia Airport. In addition, she did not state the amount of damages sought, and the allegations did not suggest that her claims exceeded the required $75,000 amount.

Because Perez had not demonstrated either federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court also noted that the complaint left unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, including because Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York.

Other Requests and Leave to Amend

Perez requested that the court seek pro bono counsel. Because the court had found no subject matter jurisdiction, it denied that request without prejudice to renewal after Perez submitted an amended complaint.

Burlington Stores requested a 14-day extension of time to answer or move to dismiss. Because the complaint had been dismissed, the court denied Burlington Stores’ request as moot.

The court granted Perez 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to include facts showing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and comply with Rules 8 and 20. The court instructed Perez to identify the relevant people and events, explain what each defendant did, describe her injuries, and state the relief she sought. It explained that the amended complaint would replace rather than supplement the original complaint. If Perez did not timely amend or show cause for failing to do so, the court would enter judgment consistent with the order.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, granted 30 days’ leave to replead, denied Perez’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice, and denied Burlington Stores’ extension request as moot. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.