Henry v. 32-42 Broadway Owner LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-02252
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Henry v. 32-42 Broadway Owner LLC, Judge Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Stefan Henry and 32-42 Broadway Owner LLC; the action was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Henry v. 32-42 Broadway Owner LLC, the court questioned whether it had authority to hear the case because no federal claim remained and the plaintiff had not shown that the parties were citizens of different states in a way that would create federal jurisdiction.
The court gave Stefan Henry an opportunity to explain why the case should not be dismissed. In response, Henry agreed that the court had no federal-question jurisdiction and did not dispute that it lacked authority over his state and local claims. He also did not claim that diversity jurisdiction applied.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Henry v. 32-42 Broadway Owner LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02252
- Gregory Woods
- May 22, 2024
Background
On May 16, 2024, the court issued an order requiring Stefan Henry to explain why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court noted that no federal claim remained and that Henry had not alleged facts showing diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the relevant parties to be citizens of different states and places the required amount in controversy at issue.
Plaintiff’s Response
In a May 22, 2024 letter, Henry conceded that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. He agreed that there was no federal-question jurisdiction and did not dispute that the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over his state and local claims. He also did not assert that diversity jurisdiction existed.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court relied on the rule requiring dismissal whenever a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion cited a decision explaining that a court without subject-matter jurisdiction lacks the power to dismiss an action with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.