As relevant to this appeal before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Plaintiff alleged violations of federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws, breach of contract, and violations of New York General Business Law §§349 and 350.
The federal district court had granted the Respondents' motions to dismiss the action and did so "with prejudice".
Reviewing de novo the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff’s favor”, the Circuit Court, citing Mazzei v. The Money Store, 62 F.4th 88, observed that “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Noting the Plaintiff “has been pro se throughout", and that the Circuit Court it had viewed his pleadings, and his other filings with the district court were interpreted, to raise the strongest claims they suggested, the court said:
1. It agreed with the district court that Plaintiff failed to state a claim of racial, religious, national-origin, or gender discrimination under federal, state, or city law;
2. Plaintiff's Second amended complaint did not include any factual allegations indicating that any of these protected characteristics played a role in his exclusion "from the startup competitions or alumni benefits";
3. Plaintiff did not "sufficiently allege that similarly situated persons of a different race, religion, national origin, or gender fared better" than Plaintiff;
4. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under New York General Business Law §§349 or 350 which requires alleging the defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered thereby; and
5. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that Respondent made any statements that would be materially misleading to a consumer.
The Circuit Court then said Plaintiff's breach of contract claims premised on discrimination "necessarily warranted dismissal on the same basis as his discrimination claims."
As to Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claims, the Court Plaintiff did not allege that any of the asserted breaches were part of the consideration that Defendant promised him as part of a validly formed contract. Rather, opined the Circuit Court, Plaintiff, "at most, alleges that they were failures to fulfill gratuitous promises; but he does not allege that he relied on these promises to his detriment".
Lastly, the Circuit Court, citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, said the federal district court "properly denied [Plaintiff] further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile".
Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.