Jane Doe v. Related Companies LLP

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 19, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-07683·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE, Plaintiff, -against- RELATED COMPANIES, LLP; STEPHEN M. ROSS; BRUCE BEAL, JR; JEFF T. 22-CV-7683 (LTS) BLAU; KENNETH WONG; MICHAEL HARRINGTON; BONITA CHUNG; ORDER TO AMEND MICHAEL HILLIER; IVAN MARCHUK; LATYSHIA JOHNSON; ALEXI POLONCO; ANGEL CORTES; BRIDGELAND WEST LLC; TAHIR DOMI; ATHANASIOS GIALABOUKIS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se.1 She invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and asserts claims against two companies that own or manage an apartment building in Manhattan (Related Companies, LLP, and Bridgeland West LLC), and numerous individuals. Plaintiff moves for leave to proceed anonymously. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously, and grants her leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

1 On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff paid the filing fees for this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). The Court also may dismiss an action for failure to state a claim, “so long as the plaintiff is given notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Wachtler v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se

pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original). BACKGROUND Plaintiff indicates that the events giving rise to her claims took place beginning in June 2020, at 456 Washington Street, New York, New York. (ECF 1 at 9.) She alleges the following facts: Ive Been Harassed, Bullied, taunted and Discriminated Against, by related employees ad residents on numerous occasions, and the managing personel, has not only instigated most of these behaviors, they have condoned staff misconduct and malfeasancent conduct speciffically Bonita Chung, Micheal Hillier, Ivan Marchuk, and, Layyshia Johnson. In addition the above named parties have violated the related privacy policy and have made or condoned racial behavior and or actions. (Id.)2

Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She also invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She seeks to have “all rent and fee[s] reimbursed including [her] security deposit” and asks for $150 million in damages. (Id. at 10.)

2 The spelling and punctuation in all quoted material is from the original. DISCUSSION A. Motion to proceed anonymously Under Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). The requirement to include the names of all parties “serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188-89 (2d Cir.

2008). “[P]seudonyms are the exception and not the rule,” and the party seeking anonymity “must make a case rebutting” the “presumption of disclosure.” United States v. Pilcher, 950 F.3d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). When determining whether a plaintiff can proceed under a pseudonym, the following non-exhaustive list of factors should be considered: (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are “highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature,” (2) “whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the . . . party [seeking to proceed anonymously] or even more critically, to innocent non-parties,” (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether “the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity,” (4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of his age, (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties, (6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court, (7) whether the plaintiff’s identity has thus far been kept confidential, (8) whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity, (9) “whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants’ identities,” and (10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff. Sealed Plaintiff, 537 F.3d at 190 (internal citations omitted, alterations in original). Here, Plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against her because of her race, which, in itself, is not necessarily a “highly sensitive” matter requiring anonymity. Doe v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 21-CV-1186-LJV, 2022 WL 1114950, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2022) (reasoning that complaint that included information about plaintiff’s medical care, and details about the alleged harassment and racial discrimination involved matters of a “somewhat sensitive and personal nature”); Cf. Doe 1 v. Branca USA, Inc., No. 22-CV-3806 (LJL), 2022 WL

2713543, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (“A claim by an adult plaintiff to have been the victim of sexual abuse and to have suffered physical or psychological damage as a result . . . is not enough to entitle a plaintiff to proceed anonymously”); Doe v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 13-CV- 6287 (PAE), 2015 WL 5781215 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2015) (plaintiff’s argument that she would be harmed in her “reputation and finances” if it was revealed that she was arrested for public intoxication did not outweigh the presumption of access). Plaintiff argues that she should be permitted to proceed under a pseudonym in this action because of “the nature of [her] lawsuit and the level of wealth and power that the [defendants] in [her] action hol[d].” (ECF 2 at 1.) Plaintiff can be understood as alleging that she may suffer some retaliation unless she proceeds anonymously. She brings suit under the Fair Housing Act

(FHA), 42 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jane Doe v. Related Companies LLP, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Jane Doe v. Related Companies LLP (Jane Doe v. Related Companies LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood
441 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1979)
City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital
463 U.S. 239 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Sealed v. Sealed 1
537 F.3d 185 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Wachtler v. County of Herkimer
35 F.3d 77 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Weyant v. Okst
101 F.3d 845 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Doe v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
310 F.R.D. 222 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)