Vasquez v. The Reece School
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-05986
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Vasquez v. The Reece School: Judge Woods dismissed some claims with prejudice and remaining state claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Lisa Vasquez and her infant daughter, J.V., lost their remaining state-law claims in federal court without prejudice; their § 1983, § 794, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Reece School received judgment as the defendant.
What happened
In Vasquez v. The Reece School, the court addressed what remained after an earlier order dismissed Lisa Vasquez’s federal claims and one state claim. The remaining claim was for breach of contract.
The court found that no federal claims remained and that the parties were not diverse, so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. After Vasquez said she did not oppose dismissal without prejudice, the court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.
Judge Woods also confirmed that the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794, along with the negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim, had been dismissed with prejudice. He directed the clerk to enter judgment for The Reece School and close the case.
The detailed version
- Vasquez v. The Reece School · No. 1:22-cv-05986
- Gregory Woods
- May 8, 2024
Background
Lisa Vasquez brought the case on behalf of herself and her infant daughter, J.V., against The Reece School. In an earlier order, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation on the school’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. That earlier ruling dismissed the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It allowed the breach-of-contract claim to continue. The court had denied permission to amend the dismissed claims, so those three claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Jurisdiction
After the federal claims were dismissed, no federal claims remained. The court also stated that the parties were not diverse, meaning the case did not qualify for federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship. The court therefore ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Vasquez responded that the plaintiffs saw no basis for keeping the case in federal court and would not oppose dismissal without prejudice so they could file a case in state court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also stated that the § 1983 claim, § 794 claim, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim were dismissed with prejudice. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendant and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.