Kessler v. City of New York et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER deeming the letter [23 ] of counsel for defendant Jewish Board for Children and Family Services a motion that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the plaintiffs claim against that party without prejudice, and granting that motion. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 3/24/2017. (Kessler, Stanley)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x RORY KESSLER, Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM & ORDER 15-CV-5961(ILG)(RML) JEWISH BOARD FOR CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------x GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge: The Court has received a letter from the attorney for the defendant, Jewish Board for Children and Family Services, requesting that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the plaintiff’s claim against his client without prejudice. That letter was swiftly followed by a letter from the plaintiff’s attorney, opposing that request. Litigation by correspondence is clearly simpler than the time-honored practice would require, and Local Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Southern and Eastern Districts, as well as the Individual Rules of this Court, would preserve. The felt need to resist making some observations of the purposes to be served by obeying those Rules is one of them. Overlooking the failure to abide by them, I regard the defendant’s letter as a motion and the plaintiff’s letter as a response to it, and having considered both conclude that retaining supplemental jurisdiction in the quintessential state claim that remains is not warranted, 28 U.S.C. § § 1367(c)(2),(3), and the defendant’s motion is hereby granted. Dunton v. Cty. of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 910-11 (2d. Cir. 1984). SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York March 24, 2017 /s/________________________________ I. Leo Glasser

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?