Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2023

Nazon v. Time Equities, Inc.

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-08680
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
EmploymentMotion to DismissCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nazon v. Time Equities, Judge Torres dismissed federal claims with prejudice and New York claims without prejudice after granting Time Equities’ motion.

Who this affects

Alix Nazon’s employment-related claims against Time Equities, Inc. were dismissed. The federal claims listed in the order were dismissed with prejudice, while the New York State and New York City claims were dismissed without prejudice; Time Equities’ motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In Nazon v. Time Equities, Inc., Alix Nazon, representing himself, brought employment-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims based on race, age, sex, national origin, and disability. He relied on several federal, New York State, and New York City laws.

Time Equities asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request and denying Nazon’s request to amend. Nazon objected, but his objections repeated earlier arguments, raised new allegations, and did not identify specific errors.

Judge Analisa Torres overruled the objections and adopted the recommendation. She granted Time Equities’ motion to dismiss, denied Nazon’s request to amend, dismissed the Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims with prejudice, and dismissed the New York State and New York City claims without prejudice. The court closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nazon v. Time Equities, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08680
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 3, 2023

Background

Alix Nazon, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an employment-discrimination complaint against Time Equities, Inc. He later amended the complaint to assert employment-discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims based on race, age, sex, national origin, and disability. The amended complaint invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Time Equities moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Nazon opposed the motion and requested permission to amend the complaint. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion to dismiss be granted and the request to amend be denied.

Objections and review

Nazon objected to the report and recommendation. Judge Torres found that the objections did not identify particular findings for review, largely repeated the original allegations, and included new allegations that had not previously been presented. The court also found that the report and recommendation had been properly and timely served and that Nazon’s objections were timely filed.

Because the objections were general rather than directed at specific findings, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. Judge Torres found no clear error and adopted the recommendation’s conclusions.

Ruling

The court overruled Nazon’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation. Judge Analisa Torres granted Time Equities’ motion to dismiss and denied Nazon’s request to amend the complaint. The court dismissed Nazon’s Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and § 1981 claims with prejudice. It dismissed Nazon’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, mail the order to Nazon, and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.