Disame v. Kantharia
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-09735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Disame v. Kantharia, Judge Torres dismissed the medical-malpractice complaint because Disame did not establish federal diversity jurisdiction.
The dismissal directly affected Andrew M. Disame’s medical-malpractice complaint against Bharat K. Kantharia; the federal court did not reach the underlying malpractice claim.
What happened
Andrew M. Disame sued Bharat K. Kantharia for medical malpractice in Disame v. Kantharia, relying on federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. The court had previously ordered Disame to provide information about both parties’ citizenship and support the amount-in-controversy requirement.
Disame’s December 1 letter still did not state his citizenship or Kantharia’s citizenship. The court explained that federal courts may hear only cases within their limited authority and that diversity jurisdiction requires the opposing parties to be citizens of different states. The court also noted that an earlier related case in the Eastern District of New York had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction after that court found that the parties were likely both citizens of New York.
After giving Disame multiple opportunities to correct the jurisdictional problem, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Torres did not rule on the medical-malpractice claim itself.
The detailed version
- Disame v. Kantharia · No. 1:23-cv-09735
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 12, 2023
Background
Andrew M. Disame brought a medical-malpractice action against Bharat K. Kantharia. He relied on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which allows a federal court to hear certain cases between citizens of different states.
On November 8, 2023, the court ordered Disame to amend his complaint to allege the citizenship of all parties and provide sufficient factual support for the amount in controversy. The court then reviewed Disame’s December 1, 2023 letter. The letter still did not allege Disame’s citizenship or Kantharia’s citizenship. Disame characterized those requirements as unnecessary technicalities.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction and must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Disame had the burden of showing that jurisdiction existed. For diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a)(1), the case must be between citizens of different states; a plaintiff and defendant who are citizens of the same state defeat diversity jurisdiction for the entire action.
The court also noted that Disame acknowledged filing an identical complaint in an earlier related proceeding in the Eastern District of New York, No. 23 Civ. 7102. That case had been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the court found that Disame and Kantharia were likely both citizens of New York.
Disposition
Because Disame had multiple opportunities to amend his complaint but still failed to properly invoke federal jurisdiction, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Analisa Torres did not decide whether the medical-malpractice allegations had merit. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.