Moncion v. The Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC

Background

Betty Moncion proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to file without paying court fees in advance. She sued Hannum Feretic Prendergast Merlino LLC, a law firm, invoking federal-question jurisdiction. Her complaint alleged that the firm took her information from a court and sent people to her home. She also alleged that Erol Burgan, described as the firm’s lawyer, had represented a store in an earlier case involving an injury to Moncion, refused to pay for all of her injuries, intimidated her, and used racism, discrimination, and defamation against her. She requested $200,000 for defamation and discrimination.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court explained that federal courts may hear cases involving a federal question or cases between citizens of different states when more than $75,000 is in dispute. Although Moncion checked the federal-question box on the complaint form and referred generally to violations of her rights, the court found that she did not allege facts showing a claim arising under federal law.

The court specifically discussed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that generally requires the defendant to have acted under state law. It found that the defendant was a private law firm and that Moncion had not alleged that it was working for a state or other government body. The court therefore concluded that the firm could not be held liable under § 1983 on the allegations presented.

The court also found that Moncion had not established diversity jurisdiction for any state-law claims, such as defamation. Although she alleged that she resided in New York, she did not identify the citizenship of the law firm’s members, which matters because a limited liability company has the citizenship of each member. The court also found it unclear whether her claims were actually worth more than $75,000, despite her request for $200,000.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Moncion 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing federal-question or diversity jurisdiction. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider had to be included again. The court directed her to provide relevant facts, including the people involved, what each defendant did, when and where events occurred, her injuries, and the relief sought.

No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Moncion failed to file the amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause, it would enter judgment consistent with the order. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.