Familia v. Mark D. Fromer, M.D. P.C.

Background

Ilver Familia, an infant, and his mother, Santa Familia, sued Mark D. Fromer, M.D. P.C., doing business as Fromer Eye Centers; Mark D. Fromer, M.D.; several individual medical providers; NY Eye and Ear Infirmary Inc.; and Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Ilver suffered injuries and complications from negligent, careless, and reckless treatment of trauma to his eye. Ilver sought damages for personal injuries, loss of eyesight, disability, pain and mental suffering, loss of future earnings, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical and other expenses. Santa Familia sought damages for the loss of her son’s future love, society, companionship, services, and support.

Plaintiffs invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They alleged that they were citizens of New Jersey and that the defendants were citizens of, or organized and doing business in, New York. The opinion states that Dr. Fromer was a New Jersey citizen, making him a non-diverse defendant whose presence defeated diversity jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and Proposed Removal of Dr. Fromer

Federal courts have limited authority and must dismiss an action if they lack subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the power to hear the dispute. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the plaintiffs and defendants, as well as more than $75,000 in controversy.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, a court may remove a party to preserve diversity jurisdiction if that party is not indispensable. Plaintiffs proposed discontinuing the case against Dr. Fromer. Dr. Fromer’s co-defendants opposed that proposal without an affidavit from Dr. Fromer confirming that he had not treated Ilver or explaining why Ilver’s medical records indicated that Dr. Fromer provided care.

The court relied on the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, which stated that Dr. Fromer treated Ilver and owned, operated, managed, or controlled Fromer Eye Centers. The complaint also alleged that he controlled or supervised the physicians and other staff who treated Ilver. The court concluded that, if Dr. Fromer treated Ilver or directly supervised the treatment, his absence could prejudice the other defendants and could make a judgment inadequate. The court therefore held that Dr. Fromer was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b), meaning the action could not fairly proceed without him.

Disposition

The court concluded that removing Dr. Fromer would not preserve the case in federal court. It also found that plaintiffs had an adequate remedy in New York state courts. The complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), and the Clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not decide whether defendants were negligent or whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages.