United States District Court, S.D. New York
Yu Hopewell Junction, NY Pro Se Plaintiff
A. Skidmore, Jr., Esq. Jennifer Ann Rulon, Esq. Frost Brown
Todd LLC Cincinnati, OH Counsel for Defendant
Sara Cohen, Esq. Shira Franco, Esq. Davis & Gilbert LLP
New York, NY Counsel for Defendant
OPINION & ORDER
KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Siji Yu (“Plaintiff”) filed an Amended
Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) pursuant to
§ 1983 against his former employer, Knighted, LLC
(“Defendant”), alleging that that it
discriminated and retaliated against him and failed to pay
him for the overtime hours he worked. (See Am.
Compl. (Dkt. No. 38).) Before the Court is Defendant's
partial Motion To Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Notice of
Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 52); Mem. of Law in
Support of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.'s
Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 54).) Defendant argues that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims
that the Court already dismissed with prejudice, and that the
Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim or a § 1983
conspiracy claim. (Defs.' Mem.) For the following
reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted.
Court assumes the Parties' familiarity with the facts and
the procedural history of this case, as described in Yu
v. Knighted LLC, No. 15-CV-9340, 2017 WL 666118
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2017), and in the Court's Order
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (Order
(Dkt. No. 69)). The Court will therefore recount only the
background information necessary to resolve the instant
filed his initial Complaint alleging violations of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 201 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and
the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”),
New York State Executive Law §§ 290-297. (Compl.
(Dkt. No. 1).) After Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss,
(Dkt. Nos. 22-24), the Court issued an Opinion and Order
(“Opinion”) dismissing Plaintiff's Title VII,
ADEA, NYSHRL, § 1981 and even potential § 1985
claims with prejudice on collateral estoppel grounds
that could not be cured, (Opinion & Order
(“Opinion”) 26 & n.10 (Dkt. No. 34)).
However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's § 1983 and
§ 1983 conspiracy claims without prejudice, giving
Plaintiff 30 days to file an Amended Complaint
“addressing the deficiencies outlined in [the]
Opinion”-namely, that Plaintiff failed to plead state
action. (Opinion 22-26.) The Court also declined to dismiss
Plaintiff's FLSA claim. (Opinion 22.)
filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court's collateral
estoppel decision, (Notice of Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. No. 36); Motion of Reconsideration of Collateral
Estoppel (Dkt. No. 37)), which the Court denied, (Dkt. No.
69). Plaintiff also filed an Amended Complaint raising the
same claims as the initial Complaint. (Am. Compl.) Defendant
filed a partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on
June 5, 2017, arguing that Plaintiff is barred from bringing
the discrimination and retaliation claims that were dismissed
with prejudice and that the Amended Complaint still fails to
state a § 1983 claim or a § 1983 conspiracy claim.
(Notice of Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss; Def.'s Mem.)
Plaintiff opposed the Motion on July 5, 2017, (Pl.'s Mot.
of Opp. (“Pl.'s Opp.”) (Dkt. No. 61)), and
Defendant filed its Reply on July 19, 2017, (Def.'s Reply
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.'s
Reply”) (Dkt. No. 65)).
Amended Complaint is almost identical to the original
Complaint, except that it adds some new allegations.
(Compare Compl. with Am. Compl.) However,
most of these new allegations are not relevant to deciding
the Motion to Dismiss. The new allegations fall into four
categories: (1) descriptions of or quotes from the
Court's previous Opinion, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 39,
110); (2) additional facts relating to Plaintiff's job
duties and performance while employed by Defendant,
(id. ¶¶ 23, 24, 38); (3) quotes from the
Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) decision
finding Plaintiff entitled to unemployment benefits and
descriptions of that proceeding, (id. ¶¶
58, 60, 69, 75, 77, 78, 79, 90, 92, 98, 109, 119, 130, 131,
134, 135, 136, 149); and (4) allegations that the New York
State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) ignored
the ALJ's decision when evaluating Plaintiff's
discrimination complaint, therefore violating Plaintiff's
constitutional rights, and Defendant conspired with NYSDHR to
do so, (id. ¶¶ 108, 142-48, 169, 172).
Court will not consider the allegations relating to
Plaintiff's Title VII, ADEA, NYSHRL, § 1981, and
§ 1985 claims, because those claims were dismissed with
prejudice and are thus no longer in this Action.
(See Order (Dkt. No. 69).) See Nemaizer v.
Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) (“A
dismissal with prejudice has the effect of a final
adjudication on the merits favorable to defendant and bars
future suits brought by plaintiff upon the same cause of
action.”). Therefore, the Court will recount here only
the new allegations that are relevant to deciding the Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's § 1983 and § 1983
conspiracy claims-the fourth category above-and not those
relating to Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation
claims or those relating to Plaintiff's FLSA claim, which
has already overcome a motion to dismiss. (See
Opinion 17, 22.)
addition to repeating allegations from the original Complaint
that Defendant “illegally conspired to deprive
Plaintiff of his constitutional, civil rights” and that
Defendant was “gross[ly][ negligent” in said
deprivations, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 99, 100), the Amended
Complaint adds the following allegations in an attempt to
cure the deficiencies with Plaintiffs § 1983 and §
1983 conspiracy claims:
• “So far, up to today, there is no written
so-called investigation from [Defendant at all.”
(Id. ¶ 108.)
• The NYSDHR, “as one of the State agencies, had
willfully been one-sided with [Defendant, [and] deprived
[P]lainitff s constitutional, federal ...