Franco v. Hyatt Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01964
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Franco v. Hyatt Corporation, Judge Swain dismissed Franco’s time-barred employment-discrimination case and declined state-law jurisdiction.
Anthony Franco’s Title VII claims were dismissed as time-barred; any state-law claims he may have been asserting were left for the court to decline jurisdiction over, and further amendment was denied.
What happened
In Franco v. Hyatt Corporation, Anthony Franco sued Hyatt Corporation, doing business as Hyatt Times Square, and Nicole Hall. Franco represented himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. He amended his complaint to assert federal employment-discrimination claims under Title VII based on events from 2013 and 2014.
The court had ordered Franco to explain why his amended complaint should not be dismissed as too late. His declaration discussed an attorney’s failure to file an appeal in what may have been a related state-court case, but it did not show that he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days or filed this federal case within 90 days after receiving a right-to-sue notice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim because the claims were time-barred. The court declined to decide any state-law claims Franco may have been asserting, denied further permission to amend, directed entry of judgment, and denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Franco v. Hyatt Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-01964
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 2, 2024
Background
Anthony Franco brought this action against Hyatt Corporation doing business as Hyatt Times Square and Nicole Hall. He proceeded without a lawyer and asked to file without paying fees. The court’s April 29, 2024 order dismissed his original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but allowed him to file an amended complaint.
Franco filed an amended complaint on May 14, 2024, attempting to assert employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court stated that the events underlying his claims occurred in 2013 and 2014. On August 19, 2024, the court ordered Franco to explain why the amended complaint should not be dismissed as time-barred.
Title VII claims
Franco’s September 5, 2024 declaration said that attorneys had promised to file an appeal after a hearing but did not do so. He then learned that no appeal had been filed and obtained a form from a county clerk to file one. The court said these allegations may relate to a state-court action arising from the same events.
The declaration did not show that Franco filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged discrimination. It also did not show that, if he had filed such a charge, he brought this federal action within 90 days after receiving a notice of the right to sue. The court therefore held that the Title VII claims were time-barred and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
State-law claims
The court stated that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Franco may have been asserting.
Leave to amend and appeal status
The court stated that pro se plaintiffs generally receive an opportunity to amend defective pleadings, but further amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court denied further leave to amend.
In its conclusion, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because it was time-barred, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.