Franco v. Hyatt Corporation

Background

Anthony Franco, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Hyatt Corporation doing business as Hyatt Times Square and Nicole Hall. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that, while working at Hyatt Times Square on December 28, 2013, Hall isolated him while he was sorting trash. Franco alleged that he was knocked down, later experienced pain in his left hip, thigh, and back, and underwent surgery and continuing treatment. He characterized his injuries as resulting from sexual harassment and a hostile work environment and sought compensation for his injuries and trauma.

Franco attached documents from an earlier state-court action involving allegations that Hall made repeated sexual advances and retaliated against him for filing complaints. The opinion states that the state appellate court had reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants in that action, holding that the defendants had not shown they were entitled to summary dismissal of Franco’s state and city human-rights-law sexual-harassment claims or his retaliation claim. The federal court did not decide the effect of that earlier action on any claims Franco might bring here.

Jurisdictional analysis

The court explained that federal district courts generally have jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or over state-law claims when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Simply checking the federal-question box does not establish federal jurisdiction.

The court concluded that Franco’s allegations appeared to involve personal-injury claims, which generally arise under state law, and that he had not alleged facts showing a viable federal claim. The court also found that he had not adequately alleged diversity jurisdiction. Franco alleged that he and Hyatt were in New York and gave only a New York employment address for Hall. He did not allege Hyatt’s state of incorporation or the location of its corporate headquarters, and he did not state the amount of damages sought. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint, which had been filed without prepayment of fees, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Franco 30 days to file an amended complaint explaining the basis for jurisdiction. The court stated that a federal-question amendment would need facts suggesting a viable claim under the federal Constitution or a federal statute. A diversity-jurisdiction amendment would need facts showing that the parties were citizens of different states and that the claims were worth more than $75,000.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Franco permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees. The court directed the clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.