Smith v. Blavatnik
1:14-cv-00503
S.D.N.Y.Jul 30, 2014Background
- Smith, a pro se plaintiff, sues for breach of contract and employment discrimination related to staffing private households.
- Defendants include Emily and Leonard Blavatnik, EB Household LLC, and Access Industries; they move to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and on res judicata grounds.
- Smith previously litigated related claims in New York state court (small claims) and in federal court, with several dismissals on merits or procedural grounds.
- The current complaint was filed January 27, 2014; the court considers whether the action can proceed given prior adverse determinations and jurisdictional limits.
- The court discusses whether Smith’s Title VII claim is cognizable, whether exhaustion of EEOC remedies is required, and whether res judicata bars current claims.
- The magistrate judge recommends dismissal with prejudice and potential imposition of a filing-bar show-cause order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction | Smith contends federal jurisdiction exists. | Defendants argue lack of diversity; potential federal question present but insufficient under exhaustion/standing. | Federal question jurisdiction exists; diversity lacking; dismissal on other grounds. |
| Whether Smith’s Title VII claim is properly before the court | Smith asserts national-origin discrimination claim under Title VII. | Exhaustion required; claims untimely and lacking standing; may be jurisdictionally cognizable but merits-based defense applies. | Title VII claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion and standing; also time-barred. |
| Standing to sue for third-party discrimination | Smith can represent third-party applicants’ interests. | Smith lacks cognizable injury as to third parties. | Smith lacks standing to bring third-party discrimination claims; failure to state a Title VII claim. |
| Preclusion by res judicata | Claims are not barred because prior actions did not involve all defendants. | Prior small-claims judgments, including as to related parties, preclude current claims. | Yes, res judicata bars current claims against all defendants due to prior adjudications arising from the same nucleus of operative facts and privity with Leonard Blavatnik. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (diversity jurisdiction framing; jurisdictional prerequisites separate from merits)
- Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2000) (exhaustion not jurisdictional prerequisite for Title VII; can be waived)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (timeliness of Title VII claims; 300-day limitations period)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing and prudential concerns for third-party claims)
- Leibovitz v. New York City Transit Auth., 252 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001) (standing where plaintiff affected personally by discrimination)
- Mehlenbacher v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 216 F.3d 291 (2d Cir. 2000) (job-discrimination claims; amount-in-controversy considerations)
- Burr ex rel. Burr v. Toyota Motor Credit Co., 478 F. Supp. 2d 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (assessing amount-in-controversy for jurisdiction)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Empresa Naviera Santa SA., 56 F.3d 359 (2d Cir. 1995) (principles of corporate citizenship and jurisdictional scope)
- Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Alan Feldman Plumbing & Heating Corp., 961 N.Y.S.2d 183 (2d Dep't 2013) (New York law on res judicata and prior small claims judgments)