Purisma v. Tiffany Entertainment et al

Filing 97

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The court has reviewed Judge Bloom's well-reasoned R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. See Porter v. Potter, 219 F. App'x 112, 112-13 (2d Cir . 2007). Tiffany's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. Tiffany shall respond to Purisima's Second Amended Complaint within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 8/28/2012. (Fernandez, Erica)

b/F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------){
ANTON PURISIMA,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

09-CV-03502 (NGG) (LB)

-againstTIFF ANY ENTERTAINMENT, JOHN DOE
and JANE DOE,

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------){

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Anton Purisima brought this pro se action against Tiffany Entertainment Group,
Inc. ("Tiffany") and two unnamed defendants. (Compl. (Docket Entry# 4-2); Second Am.
Compl. (Docket Entry# 66).) Purisima alleges that Tiffany, a company that provided him with
bus service between New York City and Foxwoods Resort Casino on June 13 and 14,2009,
discriminated against him on the basis of race, color, and national origin by giving preferential
treatment to those passengers who appeared to be Chinese, including by assigning non-Chinese
passengers to seats in the rear of the bus, by refusing to refund unused tickets purchased by
non-Chinese customers, and by offering only Chinese-language entertainment on the trip.
(Second Am. Compl.) Purisima alleges that these actions violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City
Admin. Code§ 8-107 et seq. (ld.

~

38.)

On November 28, 2011, Tiffany filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court construes as brought pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Docket Entry# 83.) The court referred this motion

s/NGG