Isienyi v. Interactive Data Corporation

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Isienyi v. Interactive Data Corporation

Isienyi v. Interactive Data Corporation

Plaintiff:	Amachi S. Isienyi
Defendant:	Interactive Data Corporation
Case Number:	1:2016cv00902
Filed:	February 3, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 27, 2018	Filing 58 OPINION AND ORDER re: 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Interactive Data Corporation. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all of Isienyi's claims arising und er Title VII. Having disposed of all federal claims in this action, the Court is required to reexamine its subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See, e.g., ACCD Glob. Agric. Inc. v. Perry, No. 12-cv-6286 (KBF), 2013 WL 840 706, at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2013) ("[F]ederal courts are mandated to sua sponte examine their own jurisdiction at every stage of the litigation."). District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Second Circuit counsels that, absent exceptional circumstances, federal courts "should abstain from exercising pen dent jurisdiction when federal claims in a case can be disposed of by summary judgment." Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 2 62 (2d Cir. 2006) ("It is well settled that where, as here, the federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, courts should generally decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims."); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors...will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the re maining state-law claims." (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988))); Kavit v. A.L. Stamm & Co., 491 F.2d 1176, 1180 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.) ("If it appears that the federal claims are subject to dismi ssal under [Rule] 12(b)(6) or could be disposed of on a motion for summary judgment under [Rule] 56, the court should refrain from exercising pendent jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances."). As the Supreme Court has explain ed (and countless courts have repeated), "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Wilson v. Dantas, No. 12-cv-3238 (GBD), 2013 WL 92999, at 9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013) ("Non-federal claims...are the only ones left. Comity and respect for New York stat e courts dictate that where possible, state courts should decide matters of state law, and that absent exceptional circumstances, this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims."). The only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are Isienyi's Title VII claims, and the complaint does not allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction; to the contrary, it states that Isienyi resided in New York at the time the complaint was filed , and that Defendant was also located in New York. Accordingly, and because the Court finds that no exceptional circumstances exist here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Isienyi's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/27/2018) (mro)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 27, 2018

Filing 58 OPINION AND ORDER re: 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Interactive Data Corporation. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all of Isienyi's claims arising und er Title VII. Having disposed of all federal claims in this action, the Court is required to reexamine its subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. See, e.g., ACCD Glob. Agric. Inc. v. Perry, No. 12-cv-6286 (KBF), 2013 WL 840 706, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2013) ("[F]ederal courts are mandated to sua sponte examine their own jurisdiction at every stage of the litigation."). District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Second Circuit counsels that, absent exceptional circumstances, federal courts "should abstain from exercising pen dent jurisdiction when federal claims in a case can be disposed of by summary judgment." Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 53 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 2 62 (2d Cir. 2006) ("It is well settled that where, as here, the federal claims are eliminated in the early stages of litigation, courts should generally decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining state law claims."); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors...will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the re maining state-law claims." (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988))); Kavit v. A.L. Stamm & Co., 491 F.2d 1176, 1180 (2d Cir. 1974) (Friendly, J.) ("If it appears that the federal claims are subject to dismi ssal under [Rule] 12(b)(6) or could be disposed of on a motion for summary judgment under [Rule] 56, the court should refrain from exercising pendent jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances."). As the Supreme Court has explain ed (and countless courts have repeated), "[n]eedless decisions of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); see also Wilson v. Dantas, No. 12-cv-3238 (GBD), 2013 WL 92999, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013) ("Non-federal claims...are the only ones left. Comity and respect for New York stat e courts dictate that where possible, state courts should decide matters of state law, and that absent exceptional circumstances, this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims."). The only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are Isienyi's Title VII claims, and the complaint does not allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction; to the contrary, it states that Isienyi resided in New York at the time the complaint was filed , and that Defendant was also located in New York. Accordingly, and because the Court finds that no exceptional circumstances exist here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Isienyi's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/27/2018) (mro)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Isienyi v. Interactive Data Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Amachi S. Isienyi
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Interactive Data Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?