Annam v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-02945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Annam v. City of New York: Judge Schofield dismissed plaintiffs’ claims after they abandoned their federal claims and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.
Khairul Annam and Naheed Afroz had all claims dismissed, without prejudice to refiling the state-law claims in state court. The City of New York, the New York City Department of Buildings, and the ten individual defendants obtained dismissal of the federal claims and the remaining claims in this federal case.
What happened
In Annam v. City of New York, Khairul Annam and Naheed Afroz sued the City of New York, the city’s Department of Buildings, and ten employees. They alleged that Annam experienced racial discrimination at work and that the plaintiffs later faced retaliation. Their complaint included federal constitutional claims and state and municipal claims.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It treated the federal claims as abandoned because plaintiffs did not respond to defendants’ arguments about those claims. The court also said that, even if it considered the claims, the complaint did not adequately allege a municipal policy or customary practice required for a claim against the city under federal civil-rights law. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to hear the remaining state and municipal claims.
The court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. Judge Lorna G. Schofield also denied as moot the parties’ joint request to extend the discovery deadline and directed that the case be closed.
The detailed version
- Annam v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-02945
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 4, 2023
Background
Khairul Annam and Naheed Afroz sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Buildings, and ten individuals employed by the Department of Buildings. The case arose from an allegedly racially discriminatory incident involving Annam’s employment and alleged retaliation against both plaintiffs. The Second Amended Complaint asserted three federal constitutional causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with several state and municipal-law claims.
Federal claims
Defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint. They argued that the federal claims did not adequately allege a municipal policy or custom, as required for municipal liability under § 1983. They also argued that the complaint did not identify a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause or allege unequal treatment based on membership in a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause.
Plaintiffs did not address those arguments in their opposition brief. The court therefore treated the federal claims—the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action—as abandoned and dismissed them. The court alternatively held that, even if it considered the federal claims on their merits, the complaint did not adequately allege an express rule, a persistent or widespread practice, or facts showing the constructive approval of senior policymakers. The court concluded that the complaint therefore did not satisfy the pleading requirements for municipal liability under § 1983.
State and municipal claims
The remaining claims arose under state or municipal law. Because the court dismissed all claims over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The court cited the early stage of the case and the interest in allowing state courts to decide state-law issues.
Disposition
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The parties’ joint request for an extension of time to complete discovery was denied as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions and the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.