McKenzie v. Goldberg
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04887
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In McKenzie v. Goldberg, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed McKenzie 30 days to amend.
Kellyann A. McKenzie’s federal lawsuit against Dr. Neil Goldberg was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but McKenzie received 30 days to amend the jurisdictional allegations. The order also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In McKenzie v. Goldberg, Kellyann A. McKenzie sued Dr. Neil Goldberg for damages after using silicone scar gel sheets that a receptionist suggested at Goldberg’s office. McKenzie represented herself and invoked federal-question jurisdiction.
The court said McKenzie did not identify a federal law supporting her claims. It also said her allegations did not establish diversity jurisdiction because she indicated that she lived in New York and provided a New York address for Goldberg.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, kept the case open for 30 days, and allowed McKenzie to amend her allegations about jurisdiction. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- McKenzie v. Goldberg · No. 1:23-cv-04887
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 28, 2023
Background
Kellyann A. McKenzie, who was representing herself, sued Dr. Neil Goldberg for damages. She alleged that in July 2019 she went to Goldberg’s dermatology office in Bronxville, New York, regarding a scar on the right side of her face. A receptionist ultimately suggested that McKenzie use silicone scar gel sheets. McKenzie bought the sheets from CVS pharmacy in Fleetwood, New York, and alleged that using them caused a first-degree chemical burn, diminished her sense of smell, altered her appearance, and aggravated her bipolar disorder.
McKenzie invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The opinion also addressed diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires citizens of different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it. McKenzie did not identify a federal statute supporting her claims, and the alleged facts did not suggest a claim arising under federal law.
The court also concluded that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. McKenzie indicated that she resided in New York, and she provided a New York address for Goldberg. The court noted, however, that the address might have been Goldberg’s office address rather than his legal domicile. Because McKenzie might be able to allege additional facts supporting diversity jurisdiction, the court allowed her to amend the complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed McKenzie’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It did not enter judgment at that time and held the case open for 30 days so McKenzie could replead the facts supporting federal jurisdiction. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McKenzie permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order attached an amended complaint form and information about a free clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.