Juravel v. Sigal
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-10550
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Juravel v. Sigal, Judge Liman dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted 30 days to amend, without deciding the medical-malpractice claims.
The dismissal affected Abraham I. Juravel and Rochelle L. Juravel’s federal lawsuit against Samuel Harold Sigal, M.D. They may file an amended complaint within 30 days that adequately alleges diversity jurisdiction, but the court did not decide the merits of their medical-malpractice claims.
What happened
In Juravel v. Sigal, Abraham I. Juravel and Rochelle L. Juravel, representing themselves, sued Samuel Harold Sigal, M.D., over alleged medical care involving Abraham’s liver cancer. They sought $80 million and appeared to rely on state medical-malpractice law.
The court concluded that the allegations appeared to show that the Juravels and Sigal were all citizens of New York. Because federal diversity jurisdiction generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states, the court ruled that it lacked authority to hear the action.
Judge Liman dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted the Juravels 30 days to file an amended complaint that properly alleges federal diversity jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether their medical-malpractice claims have merit and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Juravel v. Sigal · No. 1:23-cv-10550
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Abraham I. Juravel and Rochelle L. Juravel brought this self-represented lawsuit against Samuel Harold Sigal, M.D. They alleged that events supporting their claims occurred at “NYU” and “Montefiore” between 2015 and 2021. They alleged that Abraham received a liver transplant in December 2012, that cancer was found in the removed liver, and that Sigal stopped ordering blood tests in 2015 without telling Abraham. They further alleged that cancer was found in Abraham’s transplanted liver and lymph nodes in 2021, and that earlier testing might have led to earlier detection and removal of the cancer. They alleged physical and emotional suffering and sought $80 million in damages.
The complaint identified “malpractice by doctor” as the federal constitutional or statutory basis for the claims. The court understood the allegations instead to assert state-law claims, including medical malpractice, under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that Rochelle initially had not signed the complaint or her application to proceed without paying filing fees, but she later submitted a signature page. The court therefore treated her as a plaintiff along with Abraham.
Jurisdiction
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship—that is, no plaintiff and defendant may be citizens of the same state—and a claim amount exceeding $75,000. The court stated that the Juravels appeared to allege that they and Sigal were citizens of New York. Because the allegations therefore appeared to show New York citizenship on both sides, the complete-diversity requirement was not met.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Because the Juravels were representing themselves, the court granted them 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint invoking diversity jurisdiction must name only a defendant who is not a citizen of the state of which the Juravels are citizens and must allege facts showing that the claims exceed $75,000. The court expressly offered no opinion on the merits of any medical-malpractice or other state-law claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.