Baker v. Gallo

Background

Lisa Baker, proceeding without a lawyer, sued David G. Gallo, Bert T. Bowler, and the Estate of Karl Pirnat. The suit arose from disputes concerning the death of Baker’s friend, Karl Pirnat. Baker alleged that Gallo and Bowler represented Pirnat during the later stages of his life, that Gallo acted as Pirnat’s conservator or de facto conservator, and that defendants restricted Baker’s access to Pirnat and withheld information about his will and funeral service. She sought at least $150,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Baker asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 29 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 1104, and state law, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and alleged violations of New York’s Peter Falk’s Law and Tennessee’s Campbell Falk Act. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court held that Baker’s cited federal statutes did not provide a valid basis for federal-question jurisdiction. Regarding Section 1985, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege, among other things, an agreement or understanding to interfere with civil rights and a racial or other class-based discriminatory motive. Baker’s allegations did not show an express or tacit agreement, concerted action to deprive her of constitutional rights, or class-based discriminatory animus.

The court also held that Baker could not pursue the labor-law claim under Section 501 because she did not allege that she was a member of a labor organization or that defendants were officers of one. In addition, the subsection she cited was criminal and did not authorize her to bring a civil prosecution. As to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act claim, the court found that Baker did not allege facts showing that she was a participant or beneficiary of an applicable benefit plan. The court therefore concluded that none of these asserted federal claims raised a cognizable federal question.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court separately held that Baker had not established diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000 and complete diversity, meaning that no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant. Baker appeared to be a citizen of Connecticut, and she alleged that Gallo lived in New York, but she made no allegation about Bowler’s citizenship. The summons and complaint were served on Bowler in Connecticut, and Bowler stated that he owned and managed a business in Connecticut. The court concluded that Baker had not shown complete diversity.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Baker requested permission to amend the complaint, including to add a claim based on a federal regulation concerning patients’ rights and possibly a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied that request because amendment would be futile. It found that the patient-rights regulation applied to hospitals, hospital staff, practitioners, and certain representatives, while the defendants were not alleged to fall within those categories. The court also found that Baker had not identified a constitutional violation or state action supporting a Section 1983 claim.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied Baker’s request for leave to amend. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court, and the Clerk was directed to close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing costs for an appeal.