10-3832-cv
Gutierrez v. GC Servs. L.P.
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. WHEN 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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 17th day of June, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 RALPH K. WINTER,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 ANGELES GUITIERREZ, on behalf of
14 herself and all others similarly
15 situated,
16 Plaintiff-Appellant,
17
18 -v.- 10-3832-cv
19
20 GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
21 Defendant-Appellee.
22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
23
24 FOR APPELLANT: Adam J. Fishbein, Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.,
25 Cedarhurst, New York.
26
27 FOR APPELLEES: David M. Schultz (Todd P. Stelter, on the
28 brief), Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago,
29 Illinois.
30
1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
2 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
6 AFFIRMED.
7
8 Plaintiff-Appellant Angeles Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”)
9 appeals from the judgement of the United States District
10 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J.)
11 dated August 27, 2010, dismissing Gutierrez’s complaint
12 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
14 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
15
16 “We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for
17 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
18 under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6).” Harris v. Mills, 572
19 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009). We consider the legal
20 sufficiency of the complaint, taking its factual allegations
21 to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
22 plaintiff’s favor. See id.
23
24 Having conducted a de novo review of the record in
25 light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for
26 substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court
27 in its decision, which is as well-reasoned as it is brief.
28
29 We have considered all of Gutierrez’s remaining
30 arguments and find them to be without merit. For the
31 foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
32 hereby AFFIRMED.
33
34
35 FOR THE COURT:
36 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
37
2