Brown et al v. State of New York et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying 66 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations re 72 Report and Recommendations. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/20/15. (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
BARBARA G. BROWN, as President and on behalf of the
CITYWIDE ASSOCIATION OF LAW ASSISTANTS,
ARTHUR CHELIOTES, as President and on behalf of
LOCAL 1180, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, JOHN CLANCY, as President
and on behalf of the COURT OFFICERS BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, CLIFFORD
KOPPELMAN, as President and on behalf of LOCAL
1070, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
BRENDA LEVINSON, as President and on behalf of the
COURT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, CHRISTOPHER MANNING, as
President and on behalf of the SUFFOLK COUNTY
COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., JOHN
STRANDBERG, as President and on behalf of the
SUPREME COURT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, and
JOSEPH C. WALSH, as President and on behalf of the
NEW YORK STATE COURT CLERKS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ANDREW M. CUOMO,
individually, and in his official capacity as Governor of
the State of New York, NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED
COURT SYSTEM, JONATHAN LIPPMAN, individually
and in his capacity as the Chief Judge of the State of
New York, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, individually and in her
capacity as Chief Administrative Judge of the State of
New York, NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE
DEPARTMENT, PATRICIA A. HITE, individually, and
in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
State Civil Service Department, NEW YORK STATE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CAROLINE W. AHL
and J. DENNIS HANRAHAN, individually, and in their
official capacities as Commissioners of the New York State
Civil Service Commission, ROBERT L. MEGNA,
individually, and in his official capacity as Director of the
New York State Division of the Budget, and THOMAS P.
DiNAPOLI, individually, and in his official capacity as
Comptroller of the State of New York, and NEW YORK
STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

1:13-CV-645
(MAD/CFH)

Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

GREENBERG BURZICHELLI
GREENBERG P.C.
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 1W7
Lake Success, New York 11042
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SETH H. GREENBERG, ESQ.
LINDA N. KELLER, ESQ.

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Attorneys for Defendants

HELENA LYNCH, AAG
JUSTIN L. ENGEL, AAG
RACHEL M. KISH, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
On February 22, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that Defendants
unilaterally increased the percentage of contributions that Plaintiffs, unions representing active
and retired employees, are required to pay for health insurance benefits and thereby violated the
Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, impaired Plaintiffs'
contractual rights under the terms of their respective Collective Bargaining Agreements, and
violated state law. In a September 30, 2013 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court granted
in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. No. 48.
Relevant here, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it sought to dismiss the official
capacity claims against Defendants insofar as they sought prospective injunctive and declaratory
relief. See Dkt. No. 48 at 18.
On May 30, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking to
dismiss the official capacity claims against Defendants Cuomo, Ahl, Hanrahan and DiNapoli. See
2

Dkt. No. 66-1 at 3. Defendants contend that the complaint fails "to allege facts sufficient to
support a connection between those defendants and the enforcement of the challenged statute."
Id. On July 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended that the Court deny Defendants'
motion, finding that Defendants are "attempting to re-litigate and reargue an issue that has been
addressed by the Court without any new evidence or intervening controlling caselaw." Dkt. No.
72 at 5. Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation and
Order.
In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, the court "'employ[s] the same standard applicable to
dismissals pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).'" Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir.
2010) (quoting Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40, 43 (2d Cir. 2009)). A motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the
legal sufficiency of the party's claim for relief. See Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 111-12 (2d
Cir. 2007). In considering the legal sufficiency, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts
in the pleading and draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor. See ATSI Commc'ns,
Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). This presumption of
truth, however, does not extend to legal conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). Although a court's review of a motion to dismiss is generally limited to
the facts presented in the pleading, the court may consider documents that are "integral" to that
pleading, even if they are neither physically attached to, nor incorporated by reference into, the
pleading. See Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Chambers v.
Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002)).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a party need only plead "a short and plain statement of the
claim," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), with sufficient factual "heft to 'sho[w] that the pleader is
3

entitled to relief.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (quotation omitted).
Under this standard, the pleading's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right of relief
above the speculative level," see id. at 555 (citation omitted), and present claims that are
"plausible on [their] face," id. at 570. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability
requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely
consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of "entitlement to relief."'" Id. (quoting [Twombly, 550 U.S.] at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955).
Ultimately, "when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of
entitlement to relief," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558, or where a plaintiff has "not nudged [its] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible, the[] complaint must be dismissed[,]" id. at 570.
When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the
district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However,
when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same
arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations
for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly recommended that the Court should deny Defendants' motion
for judgment on the pleadings. In the July 25, 2014 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court
4

discussed and disposed of the exact arguments raised in the present matter. See Dkt. No. 48. In
their motion, Defendants failed to cite to any authority that the Court overlooked or improperly
applied. Having already determined the sufficiency of the complaint as to these claims,
Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly recommended that the Court deny Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's July 25, 2014 Report-Recommendation and
Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the
Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance in the Local Rules; and the Court further
ORDERS that all further non-dispositive pretrial matters are referred to Magistrate Judge
Hummel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2015
Albany, New York

5