Montemurro v. United Hospital System Corporation

Filing 4

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 10/31/13 that the Clerk of Court unseal this case. Further ordering that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. (cc: via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANGELINA MONTEMURRO, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-C-1069

UNITED HOSPITAL SYSTEM CORPORATION,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Angelina Montemurro, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against her
former employer, United Hospital System Corporation (“United”). Plaintiff is a physician and
alleges that United terminated her because she is a federal informant who helped expose
organized-crime activities in Kenosha. When plaintiff filed her case, the Clerk of Court
docketed it as one arising under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, and sealed
the file pursuant to § 3730(b). The False Claims Act allows individuals to file actions on behalf
of the federal government against those who have defrauded governmental programs. Such
cases typically involve allegations that the plaintiff’s employer submitted fraudulent claims to
Medicare or Medicaid. This is not such a case. Plaintiff is not suing on behalf of the federal
government, and she does not allege that United committed Medicare or Medicaid fraud or
otherwise defrauded a governmental program. Rather, she is suing on her own behalf (she
seeks reinstatement and back pay) and alleges that United terminated her because she

helped federal authorities combat Mafia activity in Kenosha. Because this suit does not arise
under the False Claims Act, it will be unsealed.1
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and I must examine newly filed
complaints to ensure that they properly allege a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.
See Chase v. Shop n' Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., 110 F.3d 424, 427 (7th Cir. 1997);
Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafter, 781 F.2d 1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986). I have
reviewed plaintiff’s complaint, and I am unable to identify any basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. Although plaintiff alleges that she was wrongfully terminated, she does not allege
that she was terminated on the basis of race, gender, age, disability, or any other basis
protected by federal law. Rather, she alleges that she was terminated as retaliation for
assisting federal authorities in investigating organized crime. No federal law of which I am
aware creates a cause of action for termination for this reason. Plaintiff cites various
Wisconsin laws in her complaint, but claims based on state law generally cannot be brought
in federal court unless the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Wisconsin. According to records available on the website of the
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, United is incorporated in Wisconsin, which
means that it is a citizen of Wisconsin for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, plaintiff cannot sue United for violations of state law in federal
court.
1

One might think that this case should remain sealed because plaintiff alleges that she
is a federal informant. However, plaintiff alleged that she was a federal informant in a related
case she filed in state court, and the Kenosha News has published a number of articles about
that case. Those articles state that plaintiff believes she is a federal informant who has helped
combat organized crime. Thus, the information in plaintiff’s complaint is already public
knowledge.
2

Based on the information before me, I must dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. However, if plaintiff can identify a federal law that renders an
employer liable for terminating an employee for assisting with organized-crime investigations,
then she may file an amended complaint and cite that law as part of her “short and plain
statement of the grounds of the court’s jurisdiction.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). I would,
however, be surprised if such a law existed, and I encourage plaintiff to think carefully about
whether she has any non-frivolous claims that she can pursue in federal court. It seems very
likely that she does not.
For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court unseal this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this
order.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 31st day of October 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_________________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3