Flaherty v. Dixon

Background

Marie Flaherty filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting only New York-law claims: retaliation and discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, retaliation and discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law, and a New York common-law claim for tortious interference. The defendants named in the opinion were Lindsey S. Dixon, Amazon.com, Inc., Prime Now LLC, Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., and Davy Cumberland.

The court had previously dismissed Flaherty’s First Amended Complaint and allowed her to file a revised complaint containing specified retaliation claims against Dixon and Cumberland, retaliation claims under the New York City Human Rights Law against the corporate defendants, and a revised tortious-interference claim. The court did not allow her to replead the other claims or add additional defendants. The Second Amended Complaint nevertheless included discrimination claims and unnamed “Doe Defendants.” The court stated that it would not consider those claims or claims against the Doe Defendants.

Jurisdiction

Before addressing the motion to dismiss, the court examined whether it had authority to hear the case. The opinion states that the only possible basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction was diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction generally requires all plaintiffs to be citizens of different states from all defendants, along with a sufficient amount in controversy.

The court found that both Flaherty and Cumberland were citizens of New York. Because a plaintiff and a defendant shared citizenship, complete diversity was absent. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was required to send the case back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York.

Defendants argued that the case should remain in federal court because Flaherty had received a notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allowing her to sue. The court rejected that argument because Flaherty had not filed a federal Title VII claim in this case, and the notice stated that a lawsuit based on the charge had to be filed within 90 days of receipt. The court noted that more than 90 days had passed.

Ruling and disposition

The court did not decide whether Flaherty’s state-law claims stated valid claims. Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, it denied Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as moot. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke directed the Clerk to terminate the motion, remand the case to the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, and close the federal case.