Andino v. Gem Quality Construction Inc.

Background

On March 31, 2025, the court denied Ms. Andino’s request to file an amended complaint and ordered her to explain why her federal claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. should not be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and why her state and local claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. and Muhammed Tahir should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court reviewed her written response.

Federal claims

Ms. Andino did not directly explain why her federal claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. should remain. Instead, she argued that she should be allowed to substitute Gem-Quality Corporation for that defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). That rule can allow certain amendments changing a defendant to relate back to the original complaint, including when the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired.

The court held that the proposed amendment would be futile for the reasons given in its earlier Order, regardless of whether Ms. Andino could satisfy Rule 15(c). The court also stated that Ms. Andino did not dispute that she had no claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. It therefore treated the claims against that company as abandoned.

State and local claims

Ms. Andino argued that the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. She asserted that the federal claim against Gem-Quality Corporation should proceed, that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favored keeping the state and local claims, and that possible statute-of-limitations problems supported retaining them.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that the federal claims had been eliminated at an early stage: discovery had not begun and no summary-judgment motions had been filed. The court also concluded that possible statute-of-limitations concerns did not require it to keep the state and local claims, noting that New York law may allow a plaintiff to restart a dismissed suit within six months without regard to the limitations period.

Disposition

The court dismissed Ms. Andino’s federal claims against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. in Counts I and II with prejudice under Rule 41(b), based on abandonment and her acknowledgment that she had no proper claim against that company.

The court dismissed her state and local law claims in Counts III, IV, V, and VI against Gem Quality Construction, Inc. and Muhammed Tahir under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to bringing those claims in a different forum. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.