Samuels v William Morris Agency

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Samuels v William Morris Agency 2013 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 14, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 402932/2011 Judge: Lucy Billings Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 113012013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY d PRESENT: PART 4-4 Justice Index Number : 402932/2011 SAMUELS, JUSTIN INDEX NO. VS. MOTION DATE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. DISMISS The following papers, numbered Ito Notice of Motionlordor to Show Cause 3 , were read on this motion tolfpf -Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Replying Affidavits dlWs.tk / M 1Wd. 1-2 IW). . L IW s ) . LUCY BELLINGS 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... d CASE DISPOSED J . s. c. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0OTHER [ZI GRANTED IN PART ......................... ..MOTION IS; dGRANTED 17DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER ElSUBMIT ORDER 0DO NOT POST 1 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [I3 REFERENCE 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: [* 2] 3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46 JUSTIN SAMUELS, Index No. 402932/2011 Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER - against - WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY and CREATIVE ARTS AGENCY, Defendants LUCY BILLINGS, J . S . C . : I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who describes himself as a Itblackishl1 screenwriter, Aff. of Lawrence R. Sandak (Dec. 21, 2011) Ex. A ( V . Compl.) 9 2, sues defendant talent agencies f o r racial discrimination. Defendants maintain a requirement for a referral by an llinsider,tlperson whom the agencies already know and a respect, before they will read-a screenplay or consider a screenwriter for representation. Plaintiff alleges that he contacted defendants seeking their services to represent him or broker the sale of his screenplays, but defendants refused to read his screenplays because he lacks connections within the movie industry to obtain an insider referral. Plaintiff claims that the requirement for an insider referral discriminates against blacks, who constitute a significantly smaller portion of the movie industry than of the United States population as a whole. Plaintiff previously alleged similar claims in Samuels v. samuels.145 1 [* 3] I WiJliam Morris Aqency, 2011 WL 2946708 (S.D.N.Y.July 19, 2011). The federal District C o u r t dismissed his claims under federal law d for failure to state a claim. I . at * 5 . Declining to maintain jurisdiction over his claims under state law, t h e federal court dismissed them without prejudice. He then commenced this action, which defendants move to dismiss. C.P.L.R. § 3211(a) (7). After oral argument, for the reasons explained below, the court grants defendants motion to dismiss the complaint in full. I. d 11. STANDARDS FOR DISMISSAL Upon defendants motion to dismiss claims pursuant to C.P.L.R. 5 3211(a)(7), t h e court may not r e l y on facts alleged by defendants to defeat the claims unless the evidence demonstrates the absence of any significant dispute regarding those facts and completely negates the allegations against defendants. v. Graubard Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 5 8 8 , 5 9 5 (2008); Goshen Lawrence v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 (2002); Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88 (1994)- See C.P.L.R. § 3211(a) (1); Greenapple v. Capital One, N.A., 92 A.D.3d 548, 550 (1st Dep t 2012); Correa v. Orient-Express Hotels, Inc., 84 A.D.3d 650 (1st Dep t 2011); McCully v. Jersey P a r t n e r s , Inc., 60 A.D.3d 5 6 2 (1st Dep t 2 0 0 9 ) . The court must accept the complaint s allegations as true, liberally construe them, and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff s favor. Walton v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 13 N.Y.3d 475, 484 (2009); Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827 (2007); Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d at 326; Wadiak samuels.145 2 [* 4] v. .Pond Manaqement, LLC, - A.D.3d , I 955 N.Y.S.2d 51, 52 (1st In short, the court may dismiss a claim based on Dep t 2012). C.P.L.R. § 3211(a)(7) only if the allegations completely fail to state a claim. Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d at 827; Harris v . IG Greenpoint Corp., 7 2 A.D.3d 608, 609 (1st Dep t 2010). The court assesses employment discrimination claims under a particularly relaxed Ilnotice pleadingJ1 standard. Vis v. New York Hairspray Co. I L.P., 6 7 A.D.3d 140, 144-45 (1st Dep t 2009) . Under notice pleading, plaintiff need not plead specific facts, but need only give defendants fair noticell of the nature and grounds of his claims. Although V i s v . New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 6 7 A.D.3d at 145, cites a 2002 United States Supreme Court decision applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the First Department decided September 15, 2009, four months after the Supreme Court s rearticulation of federal pleading standards in Ashcroft v . Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). therefore represents the First Department s determination to adhere to notice pleading standards under New York law regardless of Iqbal s implications for notice pleading under federal law. 111. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR FLACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Despite these forgiving standards, plaintiff fails to allege several essential elements under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. Plaintiff alleges not that he sought employment with defendants, but that he sought defendants services in brokering the sale of his screenplays, activity that sarnuels.145 3 [* 5] is%notcovered by the state and city anti-discrimination statutes. N.Y. Exec. Law 5 296(1); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(1); Scott v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 429, 433-34 (1995); P a m v. Debbane, 16 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep't 2005). Nor does he state a claim of an unlawful boycott. Although a formal boycott is unnecessary to such a claim, Scott v . Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d at 436, he does not allege that defendants were Ilpropelled by ... a desire to collectively discriminate" on the basis of race, which is necessary to such a claim. at 437. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(13); N.Y.C. Admin. Code 5 8-107(18). Nor does plaintiff allege that defendants directly discriminated against him on account of his race or were even aware of his race. Although he alleges that defendants had the means to learn his race had they chosen to investigate, Sandak Aff. Ex. A (V. Compl.) f 70, he nowhere alleges facts to suggest See that defendants ever undertook such an investigation. Fuentes v. New York Citv Com'n on Human Riqhts, 26 A.D.3d 198, 199 (1st Dep't 2006); Priore v. New York Yankees, 307 A.D.2d 67, 72 (1st Dep't 2003), Finally, plaintiff fails to allege facts to demonstrate racially disparate treatment or a racially disparate impact through defendants' referral requirement. He alleges that blacks constitute a far smaller proportion of the movie industry than of the United States as a whole, but does not allege any comparison regarding the proportion of blacks who attempt to submit samuels.145 4 [* 6] screenplays or even who write screenplays. To support disparate treatment or a disparate impact, plaintiff must show a statistically significant imbalance in the relevant pool of screenwriters. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(17) York State Off. of Mental Retardation A.D.3d 2 8 8 , 296-97 (1st Dep t 2005). & (b); Mete v. New Dev. Disabilities, 21 Defendants are entitled to impose selection criteria, such as a requirement f o r a referral or even a personal association, as long as they do not discriminate on an unlawful basis. See Berner v. Gay Men s Health Crisis, 2 9 5 A.D.2d 119, 120 (1st Dep t 2 0 0 2 ) ; Stallinss v . U . S . Electronics Inc., 2 7 0 A.D.2d 188 (1st Dep t 2000). IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the court grants defendants motion to dismiss the complaint. C.P.L.R. §3211(a)( 7 ) . This decision constitutes the court s order and judgment of dismissal. DATED: LYm- January 14, 2013 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. sarnuels.145 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.