Mathu v. Montefiore Medical Center

Background

Jacquiline Mwithaki Mathu, appearing without a lawyer, sued Montefiore Medical Center; Carmen Aguas/Guzman, identified as a mammogram technician; Yalena Kozirovsky, identified as a doctor; and Sheldon Feldman, identified as a breast surgeon. She invoked diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and asserted medical-malpractice claims.

According to the complaint, Mathu had a mammogram at a Montefiore facility on October 14, 2020. She alleged that Aguas/Guzman repeatedly told her that she would not live unless she had breast surgery, even though she had not yet had a biopsy or received a diagnosis. On November 4, 2020, Mathu underwent a biopsy after being told that a clip would be left in her breast to help locate the area during surgery. She alleged that she objected to a foreign object being placed in her body because of her spiritual beliefs and was told that Kozirovsky would make an exception for her.

Mathu alleged that she experienced pain and swelling after the biopsy and later believed that a clip or another object had been left in her breast. She also alleged that Feldman told her she had cancer before the biopsy results were available and attempted to arrange treatment planning. She claimed that the defendants had offered medical advice beyond their qualifications or without sufficient information. She sought removal of the alleged implant, professional reprimands, and nine million dollars in damages.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over federal-law claims and over disputes between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Mathu invoked diversity jurisdiction, but the court found that she had not alleged facts establishing the required difference in state citizenship. The complaint listed addresses for Mathu and all defendants in New York and therefore appeared to suggest that they were all New York citizens.

The court also concluded that it did not have federal-question jurisdiction. It stated that the complaint did not identify a federal claim or facts showing that Mathu’s right to relief necessarily depended on resolving a substantial federal-law question.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It did not decide whether Mathu’s medical-malpractice allegations were legally or factually valid. Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it granted Mathu 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. To proceed under diversity jurisdiction, the amended complaint must allege facts showing that Mathu and every defendant are citizens of different states and that the claims exceed $75,000.

If Mathu did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mathu permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.