Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2023

Uddin v. Rock Arch & Eng Corp.

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:21-cv-10900
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Uddin v. Rock Arch, Judge Failla vacated the remand, dismissed federal claims with prejudice, and dismissed state claims without prejudice.

Who this affects

Nabila Uddin’s federal Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice, while her state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The parties were ordered to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs for the dismissed Title VII claims.

What happened

Nabila Uddin sued Rock Arch & Eng Corp., Muhammed ‘Marco’ Mahaysin, Rami Taha, and LCS Restoration Corp. The parties agreed to dismiss Uddin’s federal claims under Title VII and asked the court to send her remaining New York state-law claims to state court.

The court later determined that it had no authority to remand a case that began in federal court. It vacated the earlier orders only as to the remand, dismissed the Title VII claims with prejudice, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice so they could be refiled in state court.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the parties’ stipulation, ordered each side to pay its own attorney’s fees and costs for the dismissed Title VII claims, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Uddin v. Rock Arch & Eng Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-10900
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Jan. 19, 2023

Background

Nabila Uddin filed this action in federal court on December 20, 2021, and later filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss and a motion for remand. The court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for partial summary judgment and ordered limited discovery concerning federal jurisdiction under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination statute.

The parties then asked to file a stipulation resolving the pending motion. Their stipulation agreed to dismiss Uddin’s federal causes of action and asked the court to remand her remaining claims under New York State and New York City law to New York State Supreme Court, County of Queens. The court initially approved the stipulation, stated that the Title VII claims were dismissed with prejudice, and remanded the state-law claims.

Court’s ruling

The court reconsidered the remand and held that it lacked authority to send the case to state court because Uddin had originally filed it in federal court rather than in state court and then had the case removed. The court therefore vacated the earlier orders at docket numbers 33 and 34 as to the remand decision only.

The court reaffirmed that the parties’ stipulation was approved. It dismissed Uddin’s Title VII claims with prejudice and ordered all parties to bear their own attorney’s fees and costs connected with those dismissed claims. Because no federal claims remained, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.