Dibble v. Schrodel
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-07339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dibble v. Schroedel, Judge Seibel granted dismissal motions in part, dismissed federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed state claims without prejudice.
The plaintiffs’ federal RICO and Sherman Act claims were dismissed with prejudice; their state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The listed defendants’ dismissal motions were granted in part, while McGovern’s motion was denied as moot.
What happened
In Dibble v. Schroedel, the plaintiffs brought claims under federal racketeering and antitrust laws, along with state-law claims. The defendants moved to dismiss.
The court dismissed the racketeering and federal antitrust claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately stated a racketeering claim and had not alleged a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after declining to hear them once the federal claims were gone.
Judge Cathy Seibel also ruled that Defendant McGovern’s dismissal motion was denied as moot, and the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Dibble v. Schrodel · No. 7:19-cv-07339
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs asserted seven causes of action. The first was a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against David Schroedel, Hudson Valley Management Consulting, LLC, Giaccio, Leavy, Cortese, and Cortese Construction, Inc. The second and third causes of action included federal antitrust claims under the Sherman Act and state antitrust claims under the Donnelly Act. The fourth cause of action alleged tortious interference with business relations. The fifth and sixth causes of action alleged tortious interference with contract. The seventh cause of action sought injunctive relief.
Rulings on the Federal Claims
The court stated that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted in part. It dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO claim with prejudice. The court had ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a RICO claim against Schroedel, Hudson Valley Management Consulting, LLC, Giaccio, and Leavy. The plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed with prejudice their RICO claim against Cortese and Cortese Construction, Inc.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims with prejudice. It ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed with prejudice their Sherman Act claims against Cortese and Cortese Construction, Inc.
State-Law Claims and Disposition
The remaining claims arose under state law: the Donnelly Act claims, the tortious-interference claims, and the claim for injunctive relief. After the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. It dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Because the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice, the judgment did not state that those claims were barred from being brought again. Defendant McGovern’s motion to dismiss was denied as moot, meaning the court found it unnecessary to decide that motion. The case was closed. Judge Cathy Seibel was identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself was entered by the clerk and referred to the court’s order and statements made on March 30, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.