# Brown v. Microsoft Corporation

> District Court, S.D. New York · October 1, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10660198

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 1, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10660198

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [ELECTRONICALLY um .
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC # _________.
DATE FILED? 1¢}\ | □□□□□ □
DORA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
19-CV-6649 (LTS)
-against-
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Defendant.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, United States District Judge:
By order dated August 9, 2019, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Plaintiffs complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 5. On September 12, 2019, she recused herself
from the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4), and directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the order
of dismissal and the civil judgment. On September 13, 2019, the matter was reassigned to me.
For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court dismisses the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also
dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to
construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris y. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret
them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
original).
BACKGROUND
This complaint, which is very difficult to read, concerns Plaintiff's inability to access
documents and email on her computer. She claims that her “work disappeared from the cloud”
and that she cannot access her “outlook from email.” ECF No. 2. She also appears to struggle
with backing up documents. The stress caused by Plaintiffs failed attempts to access her
documents and email has exacerbated her underlying medical conditions. She seeks
compensation “for the loss of data and the continuing abuse of [her] civil, legal, intellectual
property rights.” Jd.
DISCUSSION
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth
generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available
only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. “‘[I]t is
common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua
sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject
matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v.
CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway
Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983)); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S.
574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own
initiative... .”).

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiffs claims must arise “under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under
federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that
the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal
law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting
Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Mere invocation of
federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal
subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182,
1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction or
plead facts showing that her claim arises under federal law.
Plaintiff also does not allege facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over this action. To establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a plaintiff must first allege that
the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states. Wis. Dept of Corr. v. Schacht, 524
U.S. 381, 388 (1998). Plaintiff must also allege to a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in
excess of the sum or value of $75,000.00, the statutory jurisdictional amount. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a); Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214, 221 (2d Cir. 2006)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff's allegations show that the amount in controversy cannot be satisfied. The Court
can dismiss a complaint for failing to plead that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 only
if there is “a legal certainty from the complaint that plaintiff cannot recover sufficient damages to
invoke federal jurisdiction.” Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 202 (2d Cir.
1982); Ochoa v. Interbrew America, Inc., 999 F.2d 626, 628-29 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[I]n
determining whether a challenged jurisdictional amount has been met, district courts are

permitted only to assess the allegations in a complaint and not the validity of any asserted
defenses.”’).
Here, Plaintiff does not allege any facts in the complaint suggesting that she is legally
entitled to any money. Because “from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal
certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed,” Ochoa, 999 F.2d at 629, Plaintiff
has not pleaded facts that, if true, would allow her to recover sufficient damages to invoke the
Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
action.
A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims
when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its
early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of
jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)).
Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the
Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may
be asserting. See Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006)
(“Subsection (c) of § 1367 ‘confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by
enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise.’”) (quoting City of
Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)).
WARNING
Plaintiff has filed seven other cases in this Court. See, e.g., Brown v. Apple Corporation,
ECF 1:19-CV-6648, 2 (filed July 16, 2019); Brown v. HP Inc., ECF 1:19-CV-6331, 2 (filed July
8, 2019); Brown v. CUCS, ECF 1:19-CV-6330, 2 (filed July 8, 2019); Brown v. Fios, ECF 1:19-
CV-6329, 2 (filed July 8, 2019); Brown v. Automattic, ECF 1:19-CV-6328, 2 (filed July 8,

2019); Brown v. Rosen, ECF 1:19-CV-6786, 2 (filed July 22, 2019); Brown v. Etemao, ECF
1:19-CV-6286, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2019) (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The
Court therefore warns Plaintiff that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court will
result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis without prior
permission. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a “written opinion” within the meaning of
Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Séplembn 20, aol%
New York, New York
A oan
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10660198. Public record. Not legal advice.