Osby v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-01731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Osby v. City of New York, Judge Woods dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice and closed the case after Osby did not withdraw her dismissal request.
Tammy S. Osby’s remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law were dismissed without prejudice; her previously dismissed federal ADA and ADEA claims remained dismissed, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Osby v. City of New York, the court addressed Plaintiff Tammy S. Osby’s remaining claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws. Her federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act had already been dismissed with prejudice, except that her ADA retaliation claim was initially dismissed without prejudice and later dismissed with prejudice when she did not amend her complaint.
Osby had asked to voluntarily dismiss her remaining state-law claims. The court gave her several opportunities to clarify whether she wanted to withdraw that request, including an extension until May 17, 2025. She did not file the required letter, so the court treated her request as continuing and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.
Judge Woods directed the clerk to enter judgment for the City, close the case, and send Osby the order and judgment. He also denied special fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Osby v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-01731
- Gregory Woods
- May 23, 2025
Background
The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Tammy S. Osby’s federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Those claims were dismissed with prejudice, except for Osby’s ADA retaliation claim, which was initially dismissed without prejudice and with permission to amend. When Osby did not file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the ADA retaliation claim with prejudice on November 11, 2024.
The court did not dismiss Osby’s remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) at that time. On November 21, 2024, Osby wrote that she wanted to voluntarily dismiss those claims. Because she was proceeding without a lawyer, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis directed her to clarify whether she intended to dismiss them. The court later extended the response deadline and again warned that it would dismiss the remaining claims if Osby did not submit a letter withdrawing her earlier dismissal request.
Osby’s March 31, 2025 letter asked for more time, but it was not filed until May 2, 2025. On May 5, 2025, the court extended her deadline to May 17, 2025. Osby did not submit a letter withdrawing her request to voluntarily dismiss the remaining claims.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods concluded that Osby still intended to dismiss her remaining state-law claims. The court therefore treated those claims as voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling those claims, although the opinion does not address whether any other legal or factual limitation would apply.
The court stated that Osby’s ADA and ADEA claims had previously been dismissed with prejudice. It stated that the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment for the City of New York, and ordered the case closed.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Osby’s request to proceed without paying the required filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.