Lovejoy v. Watson

Second Circuit

Lovejoy v. Watson

475 F. App'x 792

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2012

Docket11-917

StatusUnpublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 475 F. App'x 792 (Lovejoy v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lovejoy v. Watson, 475 F. App'x 792 (2d Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Flora Lovejoy, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her wrongful death claim, sua sponte, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action. The complaint alleged that Lovejoy and the defendant resided in New York, thereby precluding diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, it did not specify the amount in controversy. See Hallingby v. Hallingby, 574 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir.2009) (“Diversity jurisdiction exists over ‘civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(1))). The complaint likewise failed to invoke federal question jurisdiction: a wrongful death claim does not present a federal question. Cf. Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 356-57 (2d Cir.2011) (rejecting a challenge to federal subject-matter jurisdiction over a wrongful death action because non-diverse defendants were eliminated prior to final judgment). “Where jurisdiction is lacking, ... dismissal is mandatory.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. Centermark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir.1994).

Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Flora Lovejoy, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing her wrongful death claim, sua sponte, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action. The complaint alleged that Lovejoy and the defendant resided in New York, thereby precluding diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, it did not specify the amount in controversy. See Hallingby v. Hallingby, 574 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir.2009) (“Diversity jurisdiction exists over ‘civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of different States.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(1))). The complaint likewise failed to invoke federal question jurisdiction: a wrongful death claim does not present a federal question. Cf. Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 356-57 (2d Cir.2011) (rejecting a challenge to federal subject-matter jurisdiction over a wrongful death action because non-diverse defendants were eliminated prior to final judgment). “Where jurisdiction is lacking, ... dismissal is mandatory.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. Centermark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir.1994).

Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 F. App'x 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovejoy-v-watson-ca2-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack