Hernandez v. De La Rosa

Background

Griselda Hernandez filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court had granted that request. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sued Ismaldy De La Rosa and Midalmy De La Rosa.

The complaint was difficult to understand. To the extent the court could interpret it, Hernandez appeared to allege that the defendants, who were described as her neighbors, and possibly others threatened, harassed, or assaulted her and her daughter, Nathally Hernandez. The complaint referred to events from 2019 through the present and to locations including Hernandez's Manhattan apartment, the Dominican Republic, and Turks and Caicos.

Jurisdictional analysis

Federal-question jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear claims arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court held that merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction was not enough. Hernandez did not allege facts showing that federal law created her claims or that resolving them required deciding an important federal-law question. The court stated that claims based on the alleged threats, harassment, or possible assaults were usually brought under state law rather than federal law.

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which can apply to state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The court stated that Hernandez appeared to allege that she and the defendants were citizens of New York because they appeared to reside in the same apartment building in New York, New York. She also did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to give Hernandez permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hernandez permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on July 17, 2023.