Holsapple, M.D. v. University Hospital

Filing 22

DECISION AND ORDER granting the Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Complaint; granting Defendant's 8 Motion to strike the Amended Complaint; directing the Clerk to close the file. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 5/3/2011. (amt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
JAMES HOLSAPPLE, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

11-CV-110

UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
_________________________________________
THOMAS J. McAVOY,
Senior United States District Judge

DECISION & ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff commenced this action asserting claims under the Federal False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), and New York State Labor Law § 741. See Compl. dkt. # 1.
Plaintiff asserted federal question subject matter jurisdiction based on the federal claim
and requested the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Id.
¶ 3.
On March 7, 2011, Defendant moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) to
dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. # 5. Defendant argued, inter alia, that the Eleventh
Amendment barred the federal claim and that the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Id.
On April 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint re-asserting the Federal

1

False Claims Act and New York Labor Law § 741 claims, and adding a claim of unlawful
retaliation in violation of the free speech protections of the New York State Constitution.
See Am. Compl., dkt. # 7. On April 5, 2011, Defendant filed a letter-motion asking the
Court to strike the Amended Complaint on the grounds that the pleading, filed without
leave of court, was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B) because it was not filed
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendant's motion to dismiss. See
Ltr. Mot., dkt. # 8. Plaintiff responded by conceding that leave of court was required but
not obtained. Dkt. # 10. He asserted that, if the case survived the dismissal motion, he
would seek leave to amend. Id.
On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendant’s dismissal motion. Dkt.
# 13. He indicated that he did not oppose dismissal of the Federal False Claims Act claim
or Defendant's request that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the New York State Labor Law claim. Id.
II.

DISCUSSION
Based on Plaintiff’s concessions, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint is

granted. The Federal False Claims Act claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and
must be dismissed. See Garcia v. SUNY Health Sciences Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98,
107 (2d Cir. 2001); Dube v. SUNY, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S.
1211 (1991). Having dismissed the only claim invoking federal question jurisdiction in this
matter and in light of the early stages of this case, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

2

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint

[dkt. # 5] is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED. Defendant’s motion to strike
the Amended Complaint [dkt. # 8] is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
close the file in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED:May 3, 2011

3