Valdez-Cruz v. Peddie
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04537
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valdez-Cruz v. Peddie, Judge Swain declined to reconsider dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction, and the action remained closed.
Leonardo Valdez-Cruz, Sandra Peddie, and Gina Barton; the case remained closed and an appeal without paying the filing fee was denied.
What happened
Leonardo Valdez-Cruz sued Sandra Peddie and Gina Barton over alleged defamation under state law. The court had dismissed the case because the parties were not citizens of different states, which meant the court lacked authority to hear the claims.
The court gave Valdez-Cruz time to file an amended complaint showing diverse citizenship. After the court extended that time, he filed an amended complaint that still did not allege diverse citizenship and was substantially similar to the original complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to treat the amended complaint as a request to reconsider the dismissal. The action remained closed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Valdez-Cruz v. Peddie · No. 1:23-cv-04537
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Leonardo Valdez-Cruz brought state-law defamation claims against Sandra Peddie and Gina Barton. The opinion states that the defendants are New York residents.
Earlier dismissal and amended complaint
On August 30, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It ruled that it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction because the parties were not citizens of different states. The court gave Valdez-Cruz 30 days to file a new complaint showing that the parties were diverse. He did not file one during that period, and the Clerk entered judgment on October 5, 2023.
The court later received a letter asking for more time to file an amended complaint. It granted that request. The amended complaint, received on December 14, 2023, was substantially similar to the original complaint and did not allege that the parties were citizens of different states.
Ruling
Because the amended complaint still did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court declined to treat it as a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal order. The action remained closed. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.