Wachtel v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation et al
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by National Railroad Passenger Corporation. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 17. The parties are directed to meet and confer and to submit a civil case management plan. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 1/30/2012) (djc) Modified on 1/31/2012 (djc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------X
ARNOLD M. WACHTEL,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER :
CORPORATION, individually and d/b/a
:
AMTRAK, and AMTRAK, individually,
:
:
Defandants.
:
------------------------------------------------------X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: January 30, 2012_
11 Civ. 613 (PAC)
OPINION & ORDER
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
Arnold M. Wachtel (“Plaintiff”) sues the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and
Amtrak (“Defendants”) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the New
York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law
(“NYCHRL”), and for breach of contract.
BACKGROUND
In April 2007, Plaintiff applied for a police officer position with Defendants. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 16.) On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff received notification from Defendants that he had
been “conditionally selected” for the position, but the “offer is contingent” on Plaintiff passing a
background check and a medical and psychological examination. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 26; Embry Decl.
Ex. B.) After his background check was completed, Plaintiff was informed that he would be
placed on a “ready to hire list.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff waited to be scheduled for psychological and
medical examinations. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff contacted Defendants on multiple occasions to
inquire about the status of his candidacy. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff was allegedly told, in essence,
that they would not schedule him for the required examinations because he was “too old” for the
position. (Id. ¶ 24; see also ¶ 24.) In sum, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed age
discrimination and materially breached an alleged contract with Plaintiff.
On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants. On June 6, 2011,
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, which the Court granted on
July 29, 2011, with leave to amend. The Court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that a contract
existed because Plaintiff failed to either (1) allege that he satisfied all of the conditions precedent
to formation of the contract, or (2) explain why Plaintiff is excused from completing such
conditions precedent. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that
he did not complete the physical and mental examinations—which were conditions precedent to
the contract—because Defendants prevented him from doing so. (Id. ¶ 26.) On October 26,
2011, Defendants again moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
LEGAL STANDARD
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
“[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id.
In considering a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the pleadings, but may also
consider documents “integral to the complaint,” or documents necessarily relied on by the
plaintiff in drafting the complaint. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis
and citation omitted). As a result, the Court will consider the June 13, 2007 Conditional Offer of
2
Employment letter which Defendants submitted along with their motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
clearly relied on the letter in drafting the Complaint. (Embry Decl., Ex. B; Am. Compl. ¶ 17.)
DISCUSSION
A successful breach of contract claim under New York law, requires (1) the existence of
a contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) the existence of
damages. Ferguson v. Lion Holding, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 484, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Where
there are conditions precedent to the formation of a contract, no contract is formed until those
conditions occur. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685,
690 (N.Y. 1995).
The parties agree that passing mental and physical examinations are “conditions
precedent” to Defendants’ conditional offer. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26; Embry Decl., Ex. B.) The
parties agree that Plaintiff did not take (and thus did not pass) the required mental and
psychological examinations. (See Am. Comp. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendants
prevented him from taking the required examinations, thereby excusing his performance. (Id. ¶¶
27, 28.) Plaintiff argues that the “general rule is . . . that a party to a contract cannot rely on the
failure of another to perform a condition precedent where he has frustrated or prevented the
occurrence of the condition.” (Pl. Opp. 4 (quoting Kooleraire Service & Installation Corp. v.
Board of Ed. of City of New York, 28 N.Y.2d 101, 106 (1971).)
“That general rule, however, applies when there is a binding contract in effect that
contains the condition precedent in question . . . .” Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Were, 907
N.Y.S.2d 441, 2010 WL 1049292, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Mar. 17, 2010). “[W]hen there
is a ‘condition precedent to the formation or existence of the contract itself ... no contract arises
3
‘unless and until the condition occurs.’” Adams v. Suozzi, 433 F.3d 220, 227 (2d Cir. 2005)
(quoting Oppenheimer & Co, 86 N.Y.2d at 690) (emphasis in original).
Here, the June 13, 2007 letter makes clear that Plaintiff’s completion of physical and
mental examinations were conditions precedent to the formation of the contract, by stating:
You have been conditionally selected for the position of police officer at Amtrak.
This offer is contingent on you passing the required medical and psychological
examinations. It is also contingent on the results of a background check. If
Amtrak determines that you have passed both examinations and your background
check is acceptable, you will be offered a vacation position . . . .
(Embry Decl., Ex. B (emphasis added).) Since Plaintiff did not complete all of the conditions
precedent, no contract was formed, and Defendants were under no implied obligation not to
frustrate or prevent the performance of the conditions precedent. Sony Music, 2010 WL
1049292, at *3.
Plaintiff also argues that the June 13, 2007 letter does not reflect the “agreement Plaintiff
entered into” and that “Plaintiff signed a contract accepting employment in or around the time
that Defendants sent this offer of conditional employment.” (Pl. Opp. 3-4 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶
33-38, Wachtel Aff. ¶ 4.) In his Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff neither alleges that he
signed any agreement with Defendants, nor implies that there was any agreement besides the
conditional offer conveyed in the June 13, 2007 letter. While Plaintiff attached an affidavit to his
opposition brief in an attempt to support his argument, the Court cannot consider affidavits in
ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Cyril v. Neighborhood P’ship II Housing Dev. Fund,
Inc., 124 Fed.App’x 26, 27 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005).1
1
Even if the Court were able to consider the affidavit, the Court would reach the same conclusion. The
affidavit states that on July 31, 2007, Plaintiff was told by Capt. Collins “that they would hire me after I
passed the background check, medical and psychological exams. At that time I signed a contract
stating that I accepted this employment.” (Wachtel Aff. ¶ 4.) Thus, even the affidavit demonstrates
that any “contract” signed would come into effect upon satisfaction of the conditions precedent.
4
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?