Paulino-Santos v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Background

The plaintiffs bring a proposed class action concerning Access-A-Ride, New York City’s paratransit system. They assert claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 8-107 of the New York City Human Rights Law. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Access-A-Ride does not provide public-transit access comparable to the subway and bus services available to people without disabilities.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority operate Access-A-Ride under a Paratransit Agreement with New York City. Under that agreement, the City funds part of the program’s costs but does not operate the service. The opinion states that the City currently funds 80% of the paratransit budget, although that amount is expected to decrease in five years.

Motion to Dismiss the New York City Human Rights Law Claim

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ New York City Human Rights Law claim should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not timely serve the complaint as required by New York City Administrative Code § 8-502(c). The plaintiffs did not dispute that they failed to serve the complaint on time. The court explained, however, that the notice requirement is intended to notify the City of such lawsuits and is not a prerequisite to filing suit.

The court found that the City was likely aware of the action before formal service and was clearly aware of it by the time of the motion. The City had since been served and had appeared to oppose being added as a defendant. Because the purpose of the notice requirement had been met, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ New York City Human Rights Law claim.

Motion to Add New York City as a Defendant

The defendants sought to add New York City as a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or, alternatively, as a permissive party under Rule 20. They argued that any reforms to Access-A-Ride could require substantial additional funding from the City.

The court denied joinder under Rule 19. It found that the defendants’ arguments about the cost of possible relief were speculative and that the defendants had not shown that the City was needed to implement any reforms. The existing defendants operate Access-A-Ride and therefore could provide complete relief. The court also found that the City had expressly disclaimed an interest in the litigation, and the defendants had not shown that proceeding without the City would expose them to multiple or inconsistent obligations. Any dispute about the City’s funding obligations could be addressed separately.

The court also denied permissive joinder under Rule 20. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants had asserted a claim against the City, and the City was not seeking to be added to the case.

Other Case-Management Directions and Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ request to substitute Demetrius Crichlow for Richard Davey as a defendant after Davey resigned from his position at the New York City Transit Authority. The Clerk was directed to terminate Plaintiff Michael Ring, correct the name of “New York City Transit” to “New York City Transit Authority,” and terminate the motion docket entry.

The court’s final order denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ New York City Human Rights Law claims and denied the defendants’ motion to join New York City as a party.