494 F.Supp.3d 238
N.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (two banquet/restaurant operators) sued state officials and agencies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York CPLR Article 78, challenging Executive Orders limiting social gatherings during COVID-19 as violating the Equal Protection Clause.
- Plaintiffs allege class-of-one discrimination: restaurants may seat patrons up to 50% capacity (or specified caps), but the same venues are barred from hosting wedding gatherings of more than 50 people, despite identical distancing/hygiene protocols.
- Relevant Executive Orders progressively limited gatherings (10 persons → 25 → 50) and allowed restaurants to serve the public at specified capacity percentages; plaintiffs claim weddings are treated worse than ordinary dining.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and for class certification; defendants cross-moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and sought dismissal of certain defendants.
- The court heard argument, applied Jacobson-style deference to public-health restrictions, and evaluated class-of-one equal protection and Rule 23 class-certification requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs showed a clear/substantial likelihood of success on a class-of-one Equal Protection claim sufficient for a mandatory preliminary injunction | Executive Orders irrationally treat identical activities differently: dining for the general public vs. wedding dining at the same venue under same safety protocols | State health experts identify meaningful public-health differences (simultaneous arrivals, prolonged mingling), and Jacobson deference permits reasonable choices amid medical uncertainty | Denied preliminary injunction — Plaintiffs failed to show clear/substantial likelihood of success; restrictions not shown arbitrary or without substantial relation to public health |
| Whether class should be certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) | A statewide class of venues >100 capacity similarly situated and harmed by the weddings limitation | Defendants: plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy; certification premature | Denied without prejudice; plaintiffs may renew with detailed evidentiary support and a proposed class definition/order |
| Whether Plaintiffs alleged a plausible Equal Protection claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint pleads intentional disparate treatment and extreme similarity between dining and wedding dining to make a plausible class-of-one claim | Defendants argued failure to state a claim because state may rationally differentiate gatherings | Motion to dismiss Equal Protection claim denied — allegations are legally sufficient at pleading stage |
| Whether certain named defendants and the New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA) should be dismissed; and whether to dismiss Article 78 claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction | Plaintiffs sued multiple officials/agencies; seek injunctive relief and state-law review | Defendants: NYSLA is a non‑suable state entity and specific allegations against some defendants are sparse; federal courts commonly decline supplemental jurisdiction over Article 78 | Court granted dismissal of NYSLA (not suable); denied dismissal of claims against the other named officials/agencies for now; declined to decide supplemental jurisdiction over Article 78 at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (broad state police power and deferential review for public-health regulations)
- South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) (chief justice concurrence stressing deference to public-health policymakers during pandemic)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (equal protection principle that similarly situated persons be treated alike)
- Neilson v. D'Angelis, 409 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for "class-of-one" similarity; "prima facie identical")
- Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (class-of-one may proceed without showing defendant's ill-will; similarity requirement clarified)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of plausibility standard to federal pleadings)
- In re Abbott, 954 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 2020) (Jacobson-style deference and limits on judicial review of public-health emergency measures)