Brodsky v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff'samended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 11-13, 22. For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. This resolves Docket Numbers 11 and 22. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment. This Order will be mailed by Chambers to the pro se Plaintiff. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/15/2018) Copies Will Be Mailed By Chambers. (cf) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 1:17-cv-03186-AJN-JLC Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 4

...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Meryl Brodsky,
Plaintiff,
17-CV-3186 (AJN)

-vMEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

The New York City Campaign Finance Board,
Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, DistrictJudge:
On May 1, 201 7, pro se Plaintiff Meryl Brodsky filed a complaint against Defendant, the
New York City Campaign Finance Board (the "Board"). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed an ame~ded
complaint on September 18, 2017, Dkt. No. 17, and Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs
amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 11-13, 22. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the
motion to dismiss.

I.

BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with this case, the substance of which Plaintiff has

previously litigated in federal court and state court. See Brodsky v. Carter, No. 15-CV-3469,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169104 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2015); Brodsky v. New York City Campaign

Fin. Bd., 2016 WL 1258986 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016); Brodsky v. Carter, 673 F. App'x 42 (2d
Cir. 2016); Dkt. No. 12-1, July 9, 2010 Order in Brodsky v. NY.C. Campaign Fin. Bd., No.
118316/06 (Sup. Ct., New York Co.); Brodsky v. NY.C. Campaign Fin. Bd., 107 A.D.3d 544
(1st Dep't 2013); Brodsky v. NY.C. Campaign Fin. Bd., 123 A.D.3d 637, 637 (1st Dep't 2014).
In short, Plaintiff seeks damages stemming from the Board's garnishment of her shares in
Exxon Mobil stock, which was ordered by a New York state court to satisfy the Board's
1

Case 1:17-cv-03186-AJN-JLC Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 4

monetary judgment against her for her failure to repay campaign funds. See generally Brodsky v.

Carter, 673 F. App'x at 43. Plaintiffs amended complaint alleges substantively the same
allegations as the prior litigation, but states a cause of action under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and§ 7431
for unlawful disclosure of her tax returns in relation to the garnishment. Amended Complaint at

iii! 239-245. "§§ 6103 and 7431, in tandem, provides a private cause of action for certain
unlawful disclosures of tax returns or return infonnation." Brodsky v. Carter, 673 F. App'x at
44. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim under C.P .L.R. §213(8). Amended Complaint at
if246-52.
The Court now considers Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, the claimant must provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief," that "give[ s] the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The allegations must "state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in
favor of the non-moving party. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d
Cir. 2007). And when a complaint is filed pro se, "it must be construed liberally to raise the
strongest arguments it suggests." Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations
omitted).
"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 6),
a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the

2

Case 1:17-cv-03186-AJN-JLC Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 Page 3 of 4

complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." DiFolco v.
MSNBC Cable L.L.C, 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010). A district court may also consider
"matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147,
153 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d
Cir. 1993)).
Here, the Court considers the filings and decisions in the underlying state court action, of
which the Court may take judicial notice.

III.

DISCUSSION
A. Res Judicata Bars Plaintiff's Section 6103 and Section 7431 Claim
The doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent actions when: ( 1) the previous action

involved an adjudication on the merits and (2) the subsequent adjudication involves the same
parties as the previous action (or those in privity with them) and (3) claims asserted in the
subsequent action were or could have been raised in the previous action. Monahan v. Dep 't of
Corrs., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000).
Under this standard, Plaintiff's §§ 6103 and 7431 claim is barred. First, in Brodsky v.
New York City Campaign Fin. Bd., Plaintiff brought a§ 6103 claim, which was litigated and
dismissed with prejudice. 2016 WL 1258986, at *2. Dismissal with prejudice as a result of a
successful motion to dismiss is considered a final adjudication on the merits. See Mitchell v.
Nat'! Broad. Co., 553 F.2d 265, 271 (2d Cir. 1977). Second, the prior litigation involved the
same parties-Plaintiff and the Defendant. See Brodsky, 2016 WL 1258986. And finally, the
third element is met because Plaintiff did raise a § 6103 claim in the earlier litigation. See id. at
*2. To the extent Plaintiff's claim here is distinct, as it is brought under§ 6103 and§ 7431 in

3

Case 1:17-cv-03186-AJN-JLC Document 24 Filed 08/15/18 Page 4 of 4

tandem, it could have been brought in the earlier litigation. The§§ 6103 and§ 7431 claim is
therefore barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

B. The Court Declines Supplemental Jurisdiction Over the State Law Claim
"The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is within the sound discretion of the district
court." Lundyv. Catholic Health Sys. ofLonglslandlnc., 711F.3d106, 117-18(2dCir.2013).
Because the Court has dismissed the federal claim in this case, the Court declines supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Brodsky, 2016 WL
1258986, at *3 ("Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over solely state and local-law
claims is particularly appropriate here where Brodsky has already litigated related claims in state
court.").

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. This resolves

Docket Numbers 11 and 22. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and enter judgment.
This Order will be mailed by Chambers to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

15 ,

Dated: August
2018
New York, New York
United States District Judge

4