Pimentel v. Ricotta & Marks, P.C.
1:19-cv-07437
S.D.N.Y.Sep 13, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Nicholas Pimental (aka Aasir Azzarmi), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued his former law firm Ricotta & Marks, P.C., asserting fraud, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, legal malpractice, and alleging failure to pay/return funds. He seeks confirmation of a $6,000 arbitration award and about $11,000 plus interest.
- The dispute arises from a fee/arbitration dispute between Pimental and his former counsel; the arbitration award Pimental seeks to confirm stems from that state-law fee dispute.
- Ricotta & Marks previously represented Pimental in multiple suits against Delta Airlines; those matters involved counsel withdrawal, dismissals for plaintiff misconduct, and pending appeals in the Second Circuit.
- Pimental alleges he is a California citizen but has previously used New York addresses in prior filings; the complaint does not plead the defendant’s citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- The district court sua sponte reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction (federal-question and diversity) and whether to permit amendment; it must dismiss if jurisdiction is lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists to confirm the arbitration award under the FAA | Pimental seeks federal confirmation of the arbitration award; invokes federal jurisdiction | Ricotta & Marks would argue (and FAA supports) that confirmation requires an independent federal jurisdictional basis | No federal-question jurisdiction: underlying arbitration claims are state-law fee disputes and FAA does not itself create federal jurisdiction; dismissal on this ground |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (complete diversity and >$75,000) | Pimental alleges he is a California citizen and seeks monetary relief totaling ~$11,000 plus interest | Defendant would (and court notes) that plaintiff failed to plead defendant’s citizenship and amount does not meet statutory threshold | No diversity jurisdiction: plaintiff did not plead defendant’s citizenship and did not plausibly allege amount in controversy > $75,000 |
| Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend | Pimental implicitly seeks relief by filing complaint; requests confirmation of arbitration award | Defendant would oppose amendment or rely on jurisdictional defects | Leave to amend denied as futile because jurisdictional defects could not be cured |
| Whether appeal in forma pauperis should be allowed | Pimental is proceeding in forma pauperis and might appeal | Defendant would argue appeal is not taken in good faith | Court certifies any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denies IFP status for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (FAA does not by itself confer federal jurisdiction; an independent jurisdictional basis is required)
- Doscher v. Sea Port Grp. Sec., LLC, 832 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 2016) (courts may "look through" a petition to confirm/vacate arbitration award to the underlying dispute to determine federal-question jurisdiction)
- Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730 (2d Cir. 2007) (describing when a case arises under federal law for § 1331 purposes)
- Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (right to relief must necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial federal question)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (courts must police subject-matter jurisdiction on their own initiative)
- Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for alleging amount in controversy to meet diversity jurisdiction)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (leave to amend not required if amendment would be futile)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for determining good-faith basis for in forma pauperis appeals)