09-0729-cv(L), 09-3241-cv(Con)
Guadagni v. New York City Transit Authority,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January
1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule
32.1.1. W hen citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal
Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must
serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
2 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on
3 the 2nd day of August, two thousand ten.
4
5 PRESENT:
6
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12
13
14 LOUIS GUADAGNI,
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.- Nos. 09-0729-cv(L), 09-3241-cv(Con)
18
19 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
20 and LOUIS DELVALLE,
21 Defendants-Appellees.*
22
23
24 GERARD A. LUCCIOLA (Paul A. Marber, on the brief), The Cochran
25 Firm, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
26
27 RICHARD SCHOOLMAN (Gena Usenheimer, on the brief), Office of the
28 General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY,
29 for Defendants-Appellees.
*
The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to
the listing of the parties stated above.
1 Appeal from judgments of January 28, 2009, and June 30, 2009, of the United States District
2 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sifton, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
4 AFFIRMED.
5 Plaintiff-appellant Louis Guadagni appeals from judgments of January 28, 2009, and June
6 30, 2009, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sifton, J.),
7 dismissing his complaint and amended complaint. Guadagni argues that the district court
8 improperly dismissed his federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for false imprisonment and malicious
9 prosecution, that it erred in considering information presented in the reply papers of defendants, and
10 that it erred in finding his state claims barred by his failure to appear for a statutorily required
11 hearing. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and
12 specification of the issues on appeal.
13 This Court reviews a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
14 Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, construing the complaint liberally and “accepting all factual allegations
15 in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Shomo v.
16 City of New York, 579 F.3d 176, 183 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282
17 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, a complaint must
18 “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
19 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
20 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making such an evaluation, the district court may consider only the
21 contents of the pleadings themselves, documents attached to the pleadings as exhibits or
22 incorporated by reference, and items of which judicial notice may be taken. See Samuels v. Air
23 Transp. Local 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1993).
2
1 Guadagni contends that in their replies to his opposition memoranda, the defendants
2 improperly submitted facts, case citations, and arguments that were not present in their original
3 motions to dismiss. We reject this argument. Naturally, a reply on a motion will contain new case
4 citations; otherwise it would be entirely repetitious of the original motion. We have held, moreover,
5 that “reply papers may properly address new material issues raised in the opposition papers so as
6 to avoid giving unfair advantage to the answering party.” Bayway Ref. Co. v. Oxygenated Mktg. &
7 Trading A.G., 215 F.3d 219, 226-27 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Litton Indus. v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn
8 Loeb Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1220, 1235 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although
9 Guadagni states that he was not permitted to respond to the new material in the reply papers, there
10 is no evidence that he moved the district court for leave to file a sur-reply on any of these issues.
11 See id. at 227. In fact, he was explicitly offered the opportunity of a sur-reply at least with respect
12 to the discussion of Murray v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2009),
13 which he declined.
14 Our independent review of the record confirms that the district court properly granted the
15 defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints, and we affirm for substantially the reasons set out
16 in the district court’s extensive and well-reasoned opinions of January 27, 2009, and June 29, 2009.
17 We note additionally that we read the district court to have dismissed Guadagni’s state law claims
18 without prejudice, a disposition that we affirm.
19 All arguments not otherwise discussed in this summary order are found to be moot or without
20 merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
21
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
26
3