Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, Judge Liman scheduled argument on jurisdiction over a remaining state contract claim.
Ruradan Corporation, the City of New York, and the defendants identified in the caption as the Toasties Defendants were affected by the scheduled argument concerning the remaining state-law breach-of-contract claim; the City was invited to participate.
What happened
Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York concerns whether the federal court can continue hearing Ruradan’s remaining state-law breach-of-contract claim.
The court questioned whether it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear related state-law claims. It noted that it had previously dismissed Ruradan’s constitutional claims against the City under the rule for claims that do not adequately state a legal claim, without finding that Ruradan had abandoned its request for money damages.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered oral argument for May 14, 2024, and invited the City to participate. The order did not decide whether the court has supplemental jurisdiction or dispose of the remaining contract claim.
The detailed version
- Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03074
- Lewis Liman
- May 6, 2024
Background
Ruradan Corporation, the plaintiff, and the defendants submitted letters concerning the court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim that remained pending. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with federal claims.
The order states that the court had previously dismissed Ruradan’s claims against the City under the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. The court had not found that Ruradan abandoned its request for monetary damages on those claims.
Issue for Argument
The court directed the parties to address whether that earlier dismissal, and the absence of a finding that Ruradan abandoned its damages request, affects the court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach-of-contract claim.
Order
The court scheduled oral argument on the supplemental-jurisdiction issue for May 14, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15C at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The City was invited to attend and participate. The order did not rule on whether supplemental jurisdiction exists and did not dispose of the remaining breach-of-contract claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.