1:23-cv-10305
S.D.N.Y.Sep 29, 2024Background
- Dr. Karolina Marciniak-Domingues Goncalves Agra and her husband Pedro Henrique filed two lawsuits (Marciniak I and II) in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged sexual harassment, sexual assault, and retaliation involving her postdoctoral work at Rockefeller University (RU) and collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
- The primary factual allegations relate to sexual harassment by Dr. Winrich Freiwald (RU) and sexual assault and ongoing harassment by Frederico Azevedo (CBMM, associated with MIT), including unsatisfactory investigations by RU, MIT, and related institutions.
- The lawsuits include claims under Title VII (federal), NY State and NYC human rights laws, emotional distress, and loss of consortium; Marciniak II adds direct claims against Freiwald and Azevedo and references the New York Adult Survivors Act.
- Marciniak II was filed shortly after a motion to dismiss briefing schedule was set in Marciniak I, and plaintiffs conceded the two suits involved common facts, parties, and witnesses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Marciniak II as duplicative (claim splitting), arguing it repeats the factual and legal basis of Marciniak I against the same parties or their privies.
- The court found all requirements of claim splitting met, dismissed Marciniak II without prejudice, and granted leave to amend for any non-duplicative claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marciniak II is duplicative | Separate suit needed due to consolidation denial & need to preserve claims, especially under ASA | Case is duplicative: same facts, legal questions, parties (or privies) as Marciniak I | Suit is duplicative; claim splitting rule bars it |
| Privity of added defendants (Freiwald/Azevedo) | Not parties in Marciniak I, so new action is warranted | As RU and MIT employees, they're in privity for the same nucleus of fact | Privity exists; claim splitting applies |
| Appropriate remedy: stay vs. dismissal | Stay Marciniak II while Marciniak I proceeds | Dismiss entirely to prevent circumvention of amendment rules | Dismissal without prejudice is warranted |
| Leave to amend complaint | No explicit request made | - | Leave to amend granted, for non-duplicative claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal for duplicative claims; sets forth claim splitting standard)
- Sacerdote v. Cammack Larhette Advisors, LLC, 939 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 2019) (defines claim splitting and its requirements for federal courts)
- TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493 (2d Cir. 2014) (sets out 'same transaction or nucleus of operative fact' test)
- Waldman v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses claim preclusion and the 'nucleus of operative fact' standard)