Ahmad v. River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc.

Background

Mohamad Ahmad sued River Point Towers Cooperative, Inc., Vanessa Ortiz, Ilana Serot, Albert Burgunder, Ari Steinberg, Carl Reinlib, and Martin Sandler. He alleged discriminatory conduct violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York City Human Rights Law. River Point Towers, Ortiz, Serot, Burgunder, Steinberg, and Reinlib moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

In an August 4, 2025 opinion and order, the Court dismissed Ahmad’s Section 1981 claim against those six moving defendants and held the rest of their motion for later decision. The Court stated that the reasons for dismissing the Section 1981 claim appeared to apply equally to Sandler. It ordered Ahmad to explain why the Section 1981 claim against Sandler should not also be dismissed and to provide any further arguments about whether the Court should hear his state-law claims as to Sandler. The deadline passed, and the docket showed no response from Ahmad.

Rulings

The Court dismissed Ahmad’s Section 1981 claim against Sandler for the reasons stated in its August 4 opinion and order. It found no basis for treating the claim against Sandler differently from the claims against the moving defendants. As a result, Ahmad’s only federal claim was dismissed against all defendants.

The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ahmad’s remaining New York City Human Rights Law claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim. The Court explained that the federal claim had been dismissed at an early stage, the case was still in its early stages, and no exceptional circumstances justified retaining the state-law claim.

The Court sua sponte, meaning on its own initiative, granted Ahmad leave to amend because this was the first ruling on the plausibility of his pleading and he might be able to correct the identified defects. The Court granted the remainder of the moving defendants’ motion and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety without prejudice to filing an amended complaint. Any amended complaint had to be filed within twenty-one days of the August 20, 2025 order. The Court warned that, without a timely extension request, failing to amend by that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice of the Section 1981 claim against all defendants and dismissal without prejudice of the New York City Human Rights Law claim, followed by judgment for the defendants and closure of the case.