Jeon v. The Pavilion at Queens Rehab
1:15-cv-05114
E.D.N.YNov 22, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Chan Min Jeon sued The Pavilion at Queens for Rehabilitation & Nursing alleging he was demoted from full-time to part-time; initial complaint cited Title VII but failed to allege membership in a protected class.
- Court dismissed the original complaint for failure to plead a Title VII claim but granted Jeon 30 days to amend; Jeon filed a declaration construed as an amended complaint.
- In the amended complaint Jeon disclaimed any Title VII claim and instead asserted breach of a Conciliation Agreement and cited NYC Admin. Code § 8-107(8).
- The Court ordered Jeon to explain federal subject-matter jurisdiction; Jeon confirmed his claim arose under state law and did not invoke diversity jurisdiction.
- The Court considered whether federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction existed and found neither ground satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint presents a federal question | Jeon originally asserted discrimination but amended to a breach of a conciliation agreement under NYC law; he did not assert Title VII | Queens Rehab argued no federal question exists where claim is state-law breach | Court held no federal question because vindication of state-law right does not require construction of federal law and Jeon disclaimed Title VII |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Jeon did not allege citizenship or diversity; resided and worked in New York | Queens Rehab contended diversity is not established | Court held diversity lacking because Jeon failed to plead citizenship and facts indicate New York domicile |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Suozzi, 433 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2005) (courts may examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- F.D.I.C. v. Four Star Holding Co., 178 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 1999) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage)
- Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Bridgeport, 368 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2004) (state-law claim presents federal question only if it necessarily turns on federal law)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims limited to cases where federal law is necessarily raised)
- Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio, 232 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2000) (citizenship for diversity determined by domicile)
- Universal Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2000) (failure to allege party citizenship is fatal to diversity jurisdiction)