$50M lawsuit against Madison Square Garden thrown out after court finds filing defective and vague
NEWARK, NJ – A woman who sued Madison Square Garden for $50 million after allegedly falling down an escalator at LaGuardia Airport had her case tossed this week after a federal judge ruled her complaint failed to meet basic legal standards.
In an opinion issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Jessica Semper dismissed the lawsuit filed by Susan M. Carmen, who claimed she broke her shoulder in a May 2023 escalator incident and now requires lifelong therapy. The court found her case legally insufficient under multiple grounds, including failure to state a claim, failure to follow federal pleading rules, and improper service of process.
Carmen alleged she was injured after arriving on a flight from Atlanta and encountering construction and poor accessibility at the airport. According to her complaint, she entered the terminal through the New Jersey Transit entrance, boarded an escalator that “malfunctioned,” and suffered a fall that led to a fractured shoulder. She said her recovery options were limited by her epilepsy and that she has ongoing medical needs.
But the court found the complaint lacked the clarity and factual detail required under federal law. Carmen’s handwritten five-page submission failed to explain how Madison Square Garden—or its properly named legal entity, MSG Arena, LLC—was responsible for a mishap that occurred at LaGuardia Airport, a location with no clear connection to the entertainment venue.
In addition to pleading deficiencies, the court also noted Carmen’s failure to serve MSG correctly. Although she filed a certificate of service claiming she handed legal documents to a security guard named “Gloria P.” at Madison Square Garden, the court ruled that such service did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Carmen had initially been granted in forma pauperis status, allowing her to file without paying court fees. Despite this leniency, she failed to comply with the court’s directives, including a 45-day extension granted in December to properly serve the defendant.
The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Carmen may refile if she can correct the deficiencies. However, the court’s ruling did not address the merits of her claim, as it never advanced beyond procedural review.