De la Cruz v. A.T.N. Incorporated et al

Filing 6

ORDER re 5 Plaintiff's Response to Order to Show Cause. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged sufficient injury for Article III purposes to allow the New York Labor Law wage notice and wage statement claims to proceed. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief arising under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should Plaintiff file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receive a notice of right to sue, Plaintiff may move for leave to amend the complaint to replead the NYSHRL claim alongside an ADA claim. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/25/2024. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
24-CV-6301(KAM)(AYS)

-againstA.T.N. INCORPORATED, LAWN RAIDERS,
INC., BARRY ROSE and TREVOR ROSE,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Response to the Court’s
September 10, 2024, Order to Show Cause.
is

satisfied

that

Plaintiff

has

(ECF No. 5.)

plausibly

alleged

The Court
sufficient

injury for Article III purposes to allow the New York Labor Law
wage notice and wage statement claims to proceed.

As to the New

York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) claim, the Court concludes
that it lacks jurisdiction over the NYSHRL claim in the absence of
a related federal ADA claim, and Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim is
accordingly dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state
court.

In the alternative, should Plaintiff file a timely charge

of discrimination with the EEOC and receive a notice of right to
sue, Plaintiff may move for leave to amend the complaint to replead
the NYSHRL claim alongside an ADA claim.
1

“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts ‘shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related
to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that
they form part of the same case or controversy.’”

Montefiore Med.

Ctr. v. Teamsters Local 272, 642 F.3d 321, 332 (2d Cir. 2011)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)).

However, “[i]n order to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court must first have before
it a claim sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction.”

Id.

(citing United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725
(1966)).

In addition, both the claim conferring subject matter

jurisdiction and the supplemental claim “must stem from the same
‘common nucleus of operative fact’; in other words, they must be
such that the plaintiff ‘would ordinarily be expected to try them
all in one judicial proceeding.’”
725).

Id. (quoting Gibbs, 383 U.S. at

“In determining whether two disputes arise from a ‘common

nucleus of operative fact,’ [courts] have traditionally asked
whether

‘the

facts

underlying

the

federal

and

state

claims

substantially overlapped . . . [or] the federal claim necessarily
brought the facts underlying the state claim before the court.’”
Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP, 464 F.3d 328, 335 (2d
Cir. 2006) (quoting Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier,
211 F.3d 697, 704 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Supplemental jurisdiction is

proper where a state law “claim arises out of approximately the

2

same set of events as [the] federal . . . claim.”

Treglia v. Town

of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713, 723 (2d Cir. 2002).
Here,

the

Court

finds,

as

Chief

Judge

Brodie

did

in

Klimovitsky v. JG Innovative Indus., Inc., No. 21-CV-755 (MKB),
2021 WL 5712120, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021), that it lacks
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims when the
only basis for federal jurisdiction are claims brought under FLSA.
The Court finds no factual overlap between the FLSA claims of
unpaid overtime and Defendants’ allegedly discriminatory behavior
in terminating Plaintiff’s employment after he suffered an injury
to his finger and was therefore “disabled and/or perceived to be
disabled.”

(ECF No. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 30-34.)

Plaintiff asserts

that the parties are the same for both claims, and it would
“exponentially increase the parties’ costs” and “likely delay the
resolution

of

all

claims”

supplemental jurisdiction.

if

the

Court

(ECF No. 5.)

declines

to

exercise

The Court acknowledges

Plaintiff’s concerns, but they do not justify the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over disability discrimination claims
unrelated

to

those

conferring

subject

matter

jurisdiction

–

Plaintiff’s claims of unpaid overtime.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s fifth claim for
relief arising under the NYSHRL is dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

As noted above, should

Plaintiff file a timely charge of discrimination and receive a
3

right to sue letter, he may seek leave to amend his complaint to
plead an ADA claim and replead the NYSHRL claim.

SO ORDERED
Dated:

September 25, 2024
Brooklyn, New York
/s/
HON. KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

4