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."
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.
"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.’ "
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
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).--------
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.
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
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."
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