Carter v. City of New York

Background

Tyleeha Carter moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for an order dismissing her remaining claims without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice generally permits a claim to be brought again, while a dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation of that claim. The City and other defendants opposed the requested terms and argued that the action should be dismissed with prejudice.

The amended complaint asserted eleven causes of action, including New York-law tort and civil-rights claims, federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim that the City was municipally liable under Monell, and a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fact discovery had closed, defendants had previewed an expected summary-judgment motion, and the court had set a briefing schedule.

The Monell claim

Carter acknowledged that the Monell claim lacked support in the discovery record and should be dismissed. Applying the factors used to evaluate a request for voluntary dismissal—including the progress of the litigation, defendants’ efforts and expenses, possible duplicative expenses, and Carter’s explanation for dismissal—the court concluded that the claim should be dismissed with prejudice. The court placed particular weight on the advanced stage of the case, defendants’ preparation for summary judgment, and Carter’s failure to explain why this claim should instead be dismissed without prejudice.

Other federal claims

The amended complaint also alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, denial of equal protection, conspiracy to interfere with federal civil rights, and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The parties did not expressly address these claims in their briefing. Because Carter stated that her only remaining claims would be state-law claims, the court concluded that she had abandoned the other federal claims and dismissed them with prejudice.

Previously dismissed claims

Before this motion, the court had entered an order—on the parties’ consent—dismissing Carter’s false-arrest claim with prejudice and dismissing all claims against Jose Hernandez and Nelson Proano with prejudice for lack of personal involvement. The City’s request to bar Carter from refiling those claims was denied as moot because the earlier order had already addressed them.

New York-law claims

The court identified the remaining state-law claims as assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to intervene, denial of equal protection under New York law, and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. These corresponded to Counts One, Three, Four, Seven, and Ten. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice because Carter explained that she intended to pursue them in state court and because discovery was complete, making duplicative expense relatively low or nonexistent.

The court also noted that Boris Mirkin, Awais Mazhar, and Juan Perez remained in the action. The adequacy of service on those defendants and whether they were personally involved had not been adjudicated.

Disposition

The order states that Counts Two, Five, Six, Eight, Nine, and Eleven would be dismissed with prejudice, while Counts One, Three, Four, Seven, and Ten would be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate Carter’s motion. Carter was also given seven days to advise whether she accepted the stated dismissal conditions or withdrew her motion and proceeded with the litigation.