Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diane M. Notaro v. Moncor Development Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 29, 2013

DIANE M. NOTARO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MONCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A/K/A MON-COR DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seibel, J.

ORDER

The Complaint in this case is DISMISSED sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The first claim, (¶ 71), seeks a temporary restraining order, which is not a cause of action but rather a form of relief. The second claim, (¶ 72), is for denial of "due process and other rights in violation of the United States Constitution." The Defendants, however, are private individuals or entities, not governmental entities subject to either the Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The third claim, (¶ 73), is for "denial of shareholder rights." This is not a recognized cause of action. It is not clear on what statute Plaintiff relies, or if she is seeking to assert a contract claim, or even if she is alleging the claim under state or federal law. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (see ¶¶ 1-3, 49), such a claim is dismissed because Title VII applies only to employment discrimination, and Plaintiff does not allege she is employed by any of the Defendants (and of course, Title VII does not impose liability on individuals). Furthermore, even liberally construing the Complaint as attempting to assert a claim for discrimination in a place of public accommodation under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., which the Complaint does not by its own terms do, such claim is also dismissed because Title II does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, nor does it "apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public," 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e), which the private entity Defendants appear to be.

Frankly, the Court is shocked that an attorney would file a Complaint with claims so poorly thought out. Plaintiff may have until May 8, 2013 to file an Amended Complaint. If no Amended Complaint is filed, the case will be closed without further notice.

SO ORDERED.

CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.

20130429

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.