Ramirez Rodriguez v. Koroghlian
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-04411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ramirez Rodriguez v. Koroghlian, Judge Oetken dismissed the Title VII claim, ordered service of the other claims, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Amy Victoria Ramirez Rodriguez’s Title VII claim was dismissed. Her other asserted claims were not dismissed in this order, and the court ordered service on George Koroghlian and Lee, Nolan & Koroghlian, LLC through the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
In Ramirez Rodriguez v. Koroghlian, Amy Victoria Ramirez Rodriguez, representing herself, alleged that the defendants discriminated against her because of disabilities under federal and state laws. She cited the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, New York and New Jersey law, and Title VII.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying fees. It found that the complaint did not allege discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, which are the characteristics covered by Title VII. The court therefore dismissed the Title VII claim for failing to state a claim.
Judge Oetken ordered the court clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants with the lawsuit and extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. The court did not dismiss the other claims in this order and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Ramirez Rodriguez v. Koroghlian · No. 1:19-cv-04411
- James Oetken
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Amy Victoria Ramirez Rodriguez brought this case without a lawyer. She alleged that George Koroghlian and Lee, Nolan & Koroghlian, LLC discriminated against her because of her disabilities. She asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York and New Jersey state law. She also cited Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court had previously allowed Ramirez Rodriguez to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion explains that, in such cases, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers generously, those complaints must still provide a short and plain statement showing an entitlement to relief.
Title VII Claim
The court dismissed the Title VII claim under the screening statute because the amended complaint did not allege that the defendants discriminated against Ramirez Rodriguez based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Those are the characteristics protected by the Title VII provision discussed in the opinion.
Service of the Lawsuit
Because Ramirez Rodriguez had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The clerk was instructed to prepare a separate U.S. Marshals Service process form for Lee, Nolan & Koroghlian, LLC and George Koroghlian, issue the summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.
The court extended the deadline for service until 90 days after the summons is issued. It stated that Ramirez Rodriguez should request an extension if service is not completed within that period. The order also required her to notify the court in writing if her address changes and stated that the action could be dismissed if she failed to do so.
Disposition
The court dismissed Ramirez Rodriguez’s Title VII claims. The order directed service of the defendants and did not dismiss the claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or New York and New Jersey law. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.