Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

9 Citing cases

  1. IBEW Sys. Council No. 7 v. Metro-N. R.R. Co.

    13 Civ. 00381 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2013)

    The Court generally must accept the material factual allegations in the complaint as true, but need not draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F. Supp. 2d 412, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) aff'd, 723 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2013); see U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n ex rel. Cleary v. US Airways, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 283, 296-97 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("no presumptive truthfulness attaches to the complaint's jurisdictional allegations") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Indeed, where jurisdictional facts are disputed, the Court has the power and the obligation to consider matters outside the pleadings, such as affidavits, documents, and testimony, to determine whether jurisdiction exists."

  2. Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

    723 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 54 times
    Stating that party's "participat[ion] in arbitration proceedings without making a timely objection" may evince waiver of right to object to arbitrator's authority

    The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F.Supp.2d 412, 417 (S.D.N.Y.2012). It held that Sokolowski had waived his jurisdictional challenge when he failed to raise it before the Board.

  3. Delprince v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.

    373 F. Supp. 3d 409 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)

    "For a court to find that an adjustment board exceeded its jurisdiction, the award must be ‘wholly baseless and completely without reason.’ " Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth. , 849 F.Supp.2d 412, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Gunther v. San Diego & Ariz. E. Ry. Co. , 382 U.S. 257, 261, 86 S.Ct. 368, 15 L.Ed.2d 308 (1965) ), aff'd , 529 F. App'x 48 (2d Cir. 2013). "Where fraud is not at issue, the court's inquiry is limited to the sole issue of ‘whether the arbitrators did the job they were told to do—not whether they did it well, or correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether they did it.’ "

  4. Staten v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y., Inc.

    282 F. Supp. 3d 734 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 14 times

    Litig., 154 F.3d 56, 61 (2d Cir. 1998). See also Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F.Supp.2d 412, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 723 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2013), and aff'd, 529 Fed.Appx. 48 (2d Cir. 2013). CONCLUSION

  5. Golian v. N.Y.C. Admin. for Children Servs.

    282 F. Supp. 3d 718 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 22 times
    Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims to enter a default judgment where the court dismissed plaintiff's federal claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)

    The Court does not, however, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Id.; Graubart v. Jazz Images, Inc., No. 02-cv-4645, 2006 WL 1140724, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2006) ; see also Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F.Supp.2d 412, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).--------

  6. S.P. ex rel. A.P. v. Allegro Sch., Inc.

    Civ. No. 17-281 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J. Sep. 29, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    And it must be said that, even in the case of jurisdictional dismissals, cases continue to cite the discretionary language of § 1367(c), albeit without analyzing the issue. See, e.g., Fuentes v. S. Hills Cardiology, 946 F.2d 196, 198 n.3 (3d Cir. 1991); J.Q. v. Washington Twp. Sch. Dist., 92 F. Supp. 3d 241, 253 n.4 (D.N.J. 2015) ("[h]aving dismissed Plaintiffs' federal claims [on a 12(b)(1) jurisdictional motion] without prejudice, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their corresponding state law claim."); Sokolowski v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 849 F. Supp. 2d 412, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (after finding no subject matter jurisdiction over federal Railway Labor Act labor claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, citing § 1367(c)(3)). I will therefore consider the § 1367(c) discretionary factors, for two reasons: First, out of caution, since it makes no difference to the result; and second, because I find the same factors relevant to the decision whether to dismiss outright or remand to state court.

  7. Mantena v. Napolitano

    13 Civ. 05300 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 19, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    A court generally must accept the material factual allegations in the complaint as true, but need not draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F. Supp. 2d 412, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 723 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2013); see U.S. Airlines Pilots Ass'n ex rel. Cleary v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 859 F. Supp. 2d 283, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[N]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to the complaint's jurisdictional allegations") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). B. The I-140 Claims

  8. Pressley v. City of N.Y.

    11-CV-3234 (SLT) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013)

    Though a court generally must accept material factual allegations in the complaint as true, a court "does not, however, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor." Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 849 F. Supp. 2d 412, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107. 110 (2d Cir. 2004)). Where jurisdictional facts are disputed, "a district court may resolve [the dispute] by reference to evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits."

  9. Malik v. City of N.Y.

    11 Civ. 6062 (PAC) (FM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2012)   Cited 51 times
    Concluding that although inmate did not specify when he filed grievance, he must have filed it within one week of the adverse action based on the date that he was transferred out of the facility

    On a motion to dismiss pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the Court must first analyze whether it has subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) before considering the merits of the action under Rule 12(b)(6). Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., No. 11 Civ. 2623 (JGK), 2012 WL 1027738, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2012) (citing Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Alabama Ins. Guar. Assn, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir.2000); McKevitt v. Mueller, 689 F. Supp. 2d 661, 664 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)). III. Discussion