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

11-917
Lovejoy v. Watson
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 FLORA LOVEJOY,
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 -v.- 11-917
17
18 DONALD M. WATSON,
19 Defendant-Appellee.
20
21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
22
23 FOR APPELLANT: Flora Lovejoy, pro se, Victor,
24 N.Y.
2526 FOR APPELLEE: No appearance.
27
1
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED.
7
8
9 Flora Lovejoy, pro se, appeals from the district
10 court’s judgment dismissing her wrongful death claim, sua
11 sponte, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We assume
12 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
13 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
14
15 Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district
16 court properly dismissed the action. The complaint alleged
17 that Lovejoy and the defendant resided in New York, thereby
18 precluding diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, it did not
19 specify the amount in controversy. See Hallingby v.
20 Hallingby, 574 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Diversity
21 jurisdiction exists over ‘civil actions where the matter in
22 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
23 of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of
24 different States.’” (alteration in original) (quoting 28
25 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1))). The complaint likewise failed to
26 invoke federal question jurisdiction: a wrongful death claim
27 does not present a federal question. Cf. Brown v. Eli Lilly
28 & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 356-57 (2d Cir. 2011) (rejecting a
29 challenge to federal subject-matter jurisdiction over a
30 wrongful death action because non-diverse defendants were
31 eliminated prior to final judgment). “Where jurisdiction is
32 lacking, . . . dismissal is mandatory.” United Food &
33 Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. Centermark Props.
34 Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994).
35
36
37 Accordingly, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the
38 district court.
39
40 FOR THE COURT:
41 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
42
2