502 F. App'x 94
2d Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs (Michaelidis, Alexander Michaelidis, Lake Prespa, Ltd.) sued Buffalo defendants Berry and Davis alleging §1981, §1983, and §1985 violations and state-law claims.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of Berry and Davis on federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged interference with leases and contracts based on racial bias related to a promoter and his African-American clients.
- Evidence showed landlords did not renew leases due to late rent and uninsured policies; hearsay about alleged ‘hassling’ not admissible to prove interference.
- Court held plaintiffs failed to show a contract interference or discriminatory intent, and no protected intimate association under the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1981 contract interference | Michaelidis contends defendants caused interference due to race. | Davis/Berry deny any discriminatory intent or contract interference. | No triable issue; lack of admissible evidence of interference. |
| §1981 discriminatory intent | Promoter’s stereotypes show racial bias in actions. | Bias arguments forfeited or not proven by evidence. | No proof of discriminatory intent; claims fail. |
| §1983 First Amendment intimate association | Relationships with landlord, customers, employees are protected intimate associations. | Relationships are not sufficiently intimate. | No protected intimate association found; claim fails. |
| §1983 equal protection/due process | Discrimination and due process violations evidenced by actions against restaurant. | Same evidence cannot sustain §1983 claims; no nexus or intent. | Claims fail for lack of nexus and discriminatory intent. |
| Procedural due process / property interest | Restaurant closure violated due process on night without permit. | No property interest in keeping restaurant open without permit. | No protected property interest; due process not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Oneonta, 221 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2000) (requires proof of discriminatory intent for §1981 claims)
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (Supreme Court 1984) (intimate association protection framework)
- Patel v. Searles, 305 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2002) (tests for intimate association sufficiency)
- Adler v. Pataki, 185 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (First Amendment intimate association scope)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County, 665 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2011) (forfeiture and appellate review considerations)
- Narumanchi v. Bd. of Trs., 850 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1988) (property-right threshold in due process analysis)
- Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard; evidence in record)
- Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483 (2d Cir. 1996) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (Supreme Court 1989) (gender/racial bias inference standards)
- N.Y. Mercantile Exch., Inc. v. IntercontinentalExch., Inc., 497 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2007) (supplemental jurisdiction considerations)