Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: nna nese nna nese naan □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ KK DATE FILED:_05/06/2024 RURADAN CORPORATION, : Plaintiff, : : 22-cv-3074 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL., : Defendants. :

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the letters of Plaintiff, Toasties Defendants, and the City regarding the Court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach of contract claim that remains pending in this case. See Dkt. Nos. 171, 176, 177. “A federal court is obligated to assure itself of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and in doing so it must apply the law as it understands it, and as it is bound by precedent.” In re Refco, Inc. Secs. Litig., 628 F. Supp. 2d 432, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). In light of the issue regarding the Court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach of contract claim, and the Court’s obligation to assure itself of its jurisdiction, the Court will hear oral argument on the issue on May 14, 2024 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 15C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The parties should be prepared to address, among other issues, whether the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against the City under the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, without any finding that Plaintiff had abandoned its request for monetary damages with respect

to those claims, see Dkt. No. 89, is of any import to the Court’s ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law breach of contract claim. The City is invited to attend and to participate in argument.

SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 6, 2024 et MYR ino New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge