## Facts

- Lieutenant Dennis Mojica, a New York City firefighter, died in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
- Mojica and Hortensia Gonzalez had one minor daughter, Allessandria.
- At the time of Mojica’s death, he had lived with Maria Barretto for about eight years and was engaged to her.
- Congress created the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) to compensate relatives of individuals killed in the attacks, with awards administered by a Special Master.
- Gonzalez filed a VCF claim as Mojica’s personal representative.
- The Special Master determined that the full VCF award attributable to Mojica should be paid to Allessandria, with Gonzalez acting as representative payee while Allessandria remained a minor.
- Barretto sued Gonzalez in New York state court, asserting state-law claims (including breach of fiduciary duty) based on the theory that Gonzalez was obligated to disburse part of the VCF proceeds to Barretto as Mojica’s domestic partner and failed to do so.
- Gonzalez removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- After transfer, the Southern District of New York ordered Gonzalez to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Gonzalez argued that the federal court had exclusive original jurisdiction because Barretto’s claim concerned denial of a portion of VCF compensation and because the Southern District of New York has exclusive jurisdiction over certain litigation connected to the September 11 attacks.

## Issues

1. Whether Barretto’s state-law fiduciary-duty claims seeking a share of already-awarded VCF proceeds “arise under” federal law or otherwise fall within the Southern District of New York’s exclusive original jurisdiction for September 11–related cases.
2. Whether removal was proper when the complaint did not seek review, modification, or reversal of the Special Master’s VCF determination, but instead sought relief against the representative payee under state law.

## Decision

- The court concluded it lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed action.
- The court rejected the argument that federal exclusive jurisdiction over certain September 11–related matters reaches a downstream dispute between private parties about how awarded funds should be shared.
- The court remanded the case to New York state court.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may remove a case only if the federal court would have original subject-matter jurisdiction; if jurisdiction is absent, remand is required.
- Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist simply because the dispute involves funds that originated in a federal compensation program; the plaintiff’s right to relief must depend on federal law.
- Statutory grants of exclusive federal jurisdiction are read to cover the category of cases Congress identified (such as challenges tied to the federal scheme itself), not every later dispute that happens to involve money paid under that scheme.
- A claim framed as a fiduciary-duty or similar state-law obligation concerning the handling of funds already awarded typically remains a matter of state law when it does not require a court to revisit the federal administrator’s eligibility or allocation decisions.

## Conclusion

Because Barretto’s suit sought state-law relief against Gonzalez as representative payee and did not challenge the Special Master’s VCF award or administration of the Fund, the Southern District of New York held that no federal or exclusive September 11–related jurisdiction applied and remanded the case to state court.


Barretto v. Gonzalez, 2006 WL 3476787 (2006)