Ebewo v. New York State Education Department
460 F. App'x 67
2d Cir.2012Background
- This is an appeal from a district court judgment granting a 12(b)(6) dismissal of the fifth amended complaint (FAC) and denying leave to amend again.
- The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation dismissing the FAC for failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiffs sought to strike Cruz’s supplemental appendix as not part of the trial record; the court granted that strike.
- The court performed de novo review of the 12(b)(6) dismissal and applied standard from Twombly and Iqbal.
- Cruz argued district court erred by not allowing objections to the magistrate judge’s report; the court found no abuse since Cruz was represented by counsel having filed objections on her behalf.
- The court affirmed the dismissal, denied Cruz’s certification motion, and held Snyder v. Phelps not relevant to Cruz’s First Amendment claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC was properly dismissed under 12(b)(6). | Ebewo et al. | Defendants. | Yes, affirmed. |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion. | Plaintiffs should amend. | Amendment would be futile. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Cruz could file objections to the magistrate judge’s report. | Cruz entitled to objections. | Counsel filed objections on Cruz’s behalf. | No error; objections allowed through counsel. |
| Whether the district court should certify questions to the New York Court of Appeals. | Yes. | No appropriate/needed. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible on their face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (liberal construction of complaint; de novo review for dismissal)
- Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975) (evidence not part of trial record generally not considered on appeal)
- Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional standard for certiorari questions to state courts)