Watson v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Filing
22
OPINION re: 20 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Corrected E-Filing) filed by New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff is granted leave to replead within 20 days. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/31/2017) (jwh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------x
CAREEMA WATSON,
Plaintiff,
16 Civ. 7532
(RWS)
- against OPINION
NEW YORK STATE DEP'T OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------x
A P P E A R A N C E S:
I USDC .-SDNY
1
I
DOCUf\JENT
ELECTRONfC/\T-iY
Attorney for Plaintiff
1 D C#:
Plaintiff, pro se
DAic ILED .· ~~+-r--=;::
_,
Careema Watson
1515 St. John's Place, Apt. 1.IE=::::==:=::=:==;::::=l:~';!:l~~==LJ
Brooklyn, NY 11213
Attorney for Defendant
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
120 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10271
By:
David P. Holgado
1
Sweet, D.J.
Defendant New York State Department of Motor Vehicles ("OMV"
or the "Defendant") has moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1)
to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Careema Watson ("Watson" or
the
"Plaintiff")
jurisdiction.
The
(the
"Complaint")
Complaint
alleges
Americans with Disabilities Act,
the
New York State Human
( "NYSHRL"),
Admin.
Rights
for
lack
that
the
42 U.S.C.
Law,
of
N.Y.
Specifically,
("NYCHRL").
matter
OMV violated
§§ 12112-17
Exec.
and the New York City Human Rights
Code§§ 8-101-131
subject
(See Compl.
L.
("ADA"),
§§
Law,
290-97
N. Y.
at 1,
the
Dkt.
City
2.)
Watson alleges that the OMV failed to accommodate
her alleged disability of
epilepsy and
wrongfully terminate her employment.
For the following reasons,
lupus
and proceeded to
(See Compl. at 2,
9, 12-13.)
the Defendant's motion is granted and
the Complaint is dismissed with leave to replead within 20 days.
Prior Proceedings
Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on September 26 , 2016 .
(Dkt. 2.) On February 14, 2017, Defendant moved the instant motion
to dismiss.
(Dkt. 9.) The motion was taken on submission and marked
fully submitted on April 21, 2017 .
2
Legal Standard
"The inquiry on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under
Rule
12 (b) (1)
concerns
whether
the
district
court has the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the
case." Jackson v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Labor, 709 F. Supp. 2d 218, 223
(S.D.N.Y.
2010)
(citing Makarova v.
United States,
201 F.3d 110,
113
(2d Cir. 2000)). "[J]urisdiction must be shown affirmatively,
and
that
showing
inferences
is
favorable
not
to
made
the
by
party
Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v.
drawing
from
asserting
Drakos,
the
it."
140 F.3d 129,
pleadings
Id.
(quoting
131
(2d Cir.
1998)) .
Plaintiff's Complaint Is Dismissed With Leave To Replead
The
Eleventh
Amendment
to
the
United
States
Cons ti tut ion
precludes federal courts from entertaining lawsuits by individuals
against
the
States
Regents,
528 U.S.
U.S.
54
44,
and
62,
(1996);
state
72-73
agencies.
(2 000);
Kimel
v.
Fla.
Seminole Tribe v.
Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S.
265,
Bd.
Fla.,
276
of
517
(1986);
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)
(state agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity). New York State
has neither waived,
nor has Congress abrogated,
New York States'
immunity with respect to claims arising from the ADA,
3
NYSHRL,
or
HYCHRL-the very claims that constitute the instant Complaint. See
Nicolae v.
with
Office of Vocational
Disabilities,
(citations omitted)
257
Fed.
&
Educ.
Servs.
for
App'x
455,
456-57
(2d
Indi victuals
Cir.
2007)
(upholding dismissal of ADA claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction) ; Jackson v. NYS Dep't of Labor,
F. Supp. 2d 218, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
709
(holding the same for claims
brought under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL). As the OMV is a state entity
for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the Complaint has
only been brought against the OMV, the Complaint must be dismissed.
See O'Diah v. N.Y.C, No. 02 Civ. 274 (DLC), 2002 WL 1941179, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2002)
(collecting cases).
"Generally, leave to amend should be freely given, and a pro
se litigant
in
particular
should be
afforded
every
reasonable
opportunity to demonstrate that he has a valid claim." Nielsen v.
Rabin,
746 F.3d 58,
62
(2d Cir.
2014)
(quoting Matima v.
Celli,
228 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2000)). "A prose complaint should not be
dismissed without the Court granting leave to amend at least once
when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that
a valid claim might be stated." Id.
(quoting Chavis v. Chappius,
618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010)). Taking into account Plaintiff's
pro
se status
and the
nature
of
her
claims,
Plaintiff leave to replead within 20 days.
15 (a) ( 2)
the
Court
See Fed.
R.
grants
Civ.
P.
(A court "should freely give leave" to amend "when justice
4
so requires."). Any future repleading should show that this Court
may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, such as
by naming in the complaint individual defendants responsible for
unlawful actions alleged and specifying the factual basis for any
claim made. See Ying Jing Gan v . City of N.Y.,
(2d Cir. 1993)
996 F.3d 522, 529
("As to a claim brought against [a state official]
in his individual capacity . . . the state official has no Ele venth
Amendment immunity.") .
5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted and Plaintiff is granted leave to replead within 20 days.
It is so ordered.
New York, NY
May
3I
, 2011
ROBERT W. SWEET
U.S.D.J.
6
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?