Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–CV–0930 (ADS)(ARL).,12–CV–0930 (ADS)(ARL). |
| Citation | 947 F.Supp.2d 317 |
| Parties | Barbara G. BROWN, as President and on behalf of the Citywide Association of Law Assistants, Arthur Cheliotes, as President and on behalf of Local 1180, Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, John Clancy, as President and on behalf of the Court Officers Benevolent Association of Nassau County, Clifford Koppelman, as President and on behalf of Local 1070, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, Brenda Levinson, as President and on behalf of the Court Attorneys Association of the City of New York, Christopher Manning, as President and on behalf of the Suffolk County Court Employees Association, Inc., John Strandberg, As President and on behalf of the New York State Supreme Court Officers Association, Joseph C. Walsh, as President and on behalf of the New York State Court Clerks Associations, Plaintiffs, v. State of NEW YORK, Andrew M. Cuomo, individually and in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, New York Unified Court System, Jonathan Lippman, individually and in his capacity as the Chief Judge of the State of New York, A. Gail Prudenti, individually and in her capacity as the Chief Administrative Judge of the Court of New York State, New York State Civil Service Department, Patricia A. Hite, individually, and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Department, New York State Civil Service Commission, Caroline W. Ahl and J. Dennis Hanrahan, individually and in their official capacities as Commissioners of the New York StateCivil Service Commission, Robert L. Megna, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the New York State Division of the Budget, Thomas P. Dinapoli, individually, and in his official capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York, and New York State And Local Retirement System, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Greenberg Burzichelli Greenberg P.C. by Harry Greenberg, Esq., Linda N. Keller, Esq., Seth H. Greenberg, Esq., Of Counsel, Lake Success, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York by Ralph Pernick, Assistant Attorney General, Mineola, NY, Attorneys for the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs commenced the within action alleging that the Defendants unilaterally increased the percentage of contributions that employees represented by the Plaintiffs, New York State public-employee unions, were required to pay for health insurance benefits and thereby violated the Contracts Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and impaired the Plaintiffs' contractual rights under the terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, and monetary damages. Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to transfer venue is granted.
Unless stated otherwise, the following facts are drawn from the complaint and construed in a light favorable to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff Citywide Association of Law Assistants (“the CALA”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial court attorney employees in the Civil, Criminal, and Family Courts of New York City employed by the New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”). The Plaintiff Barbara G. Brown is the Chairperson of the CALA.
the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial employees holding the titles Assistant Court Analyst, Administrative Services Clerk, Court Analyst, Senior and Principal Administrative Services Clerk, and Supervising Photostate Operator, all employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff Arthur Cheliotes is the duly elected President of CWA.
The Plaintiff Court Officers Benevolent Association of Nassau County (“COBANC”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial court employees in Nassau County employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff John Clancy is the President of COBANC.
The Plaintiff Local 1070, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL–CIO (“Local 170”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial employees employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff Clifford Koppelman is the duly elected President of Local 1070.
The Plaintiff Court Attorneys Association of the City of New York (“CAA”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial court attorney employees in New York City employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff Brenda Levinson is the duly elected President of CAA.
The Plaintiff Suffolk County Court Employees Association, Inc. (“SC CEA”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial employees in Suffolk County employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff Christopher Manning is the duly elected President of SC CEA.
The Plaintiff New York State Supreme Court Officers Association (“SCOA”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain Supreme Court officers employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff John Strandberg is the duly elected President of the SCOA.
The Plaintiff New York State Court Clerks Association (“CCA”) is the collective bargaining representative of certain non judicial court clerks employed by the UCS. The Plaintiff Joseph C. Walsh is the duly elected President of CCA.
The employees represented by the Plaintiffs receive their health benefits through the UCS.
During the relevant time, the defendant Patricia A. Hite (“Hite”) was Acting Commissioner of the Civil Service Department. The Defendants Caroline W. Ahl (“Ahl”) and J. Dennis Hanrahan were members of the Civil Service Commission. The Defendant Robert L. Megna (“Megna”) was the Director of the New York State Division of Budget. The Defendant Thomas P. DiNapoli (“DiNapoli”) was the Comptroller of the State of New York.
Article XI of the New York State Civil Service Law (“CSL”) provides for a statewide health insurance plan for eligible State employees and retired State employees known as NYSHIP or “Empire Plan.” New York Civil Service Law § 167(1) assigns the State contribution rate towards the cost of health insurance premium or subscription charges for the coverage of State employees and retired State employees enrolled in NYSHIP. Prior to 1983, the State was required to pay the full cost of premium or subscription charges for the coverage of State employees and retired State employees enrolled in NYSHIP. Chapter 14 of the Laws of 1983 amended Civil Service Law § 167(1)(a) to limit the amount that the State was required to pay towards the cost of premium or subscription charges for the coverage of State employees and retired State employees enrolled in NYSHIP. This law provided that the State was required to contribute only ninety percent (90%) of the cost of such premium or subscription charges for the coverage of State employees and retired State employees retiring on or after January 1, 1983. The State would continue to contribute seventy-five percent (75%) of such charges for dependent coverage for State employees and retired State employees.
The Governor's Program Bill Memorandum regarding the 1983 amendment provided that “[t]he State and the employee organizations representing State workers have agreed to a reduction of the State's contribution for the premium or subscription charges for employees enrolled in the statewide health insurance plan.”
The Division of the Budget's Report on Bills also acknowledged that
Between 1983 and 2011, Civil Service Law § 167(8) provided:
[n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, where and to the extent that an agreement between the state and an employee organization entered into pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter so provides, the state cost of premium or subscription charges for eligible employees covered by such agreement may be increased pursuant to the terms of such agreement.
(emphasis added). As a result of negotiations, the Plaintiffs and the State of New York executed Collective Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) between 1983 and 2011 consistent with Civil Service Law § 167(1). The most recent CBAs covered the period beginning April 1, 2007 and expiring March 31, 2011. The Plaintiffs maintain that, in the absence of newly executed CBAs, the terms and conditions reflected in the parties' prior CBAs continue pursuant to Civil Service Law § 209–a.1(e) (“the Triborough doctrine”).
Article 8.1 of the CBAs provide that “[e]mployees enrolled in such plans shall receive health and prescription drug benefits to the same extent, at the same contribution level, [and] in the same form and with the same co-payment structure that applies to the majority of represented Executive Branch employees [covered by such plans].” The agreement thus provided the Plaintiff Union members with two guarantees: first, they would continue to receive health and prescription drug benefits; and second, they would receive the same benefits on the same terms as the majority of represented Executive Branch employees. This section appears, either verbatim or in substantially identical form, in every CBA executed by the parties for more than twenty years.
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. Crab Addison, Inc.
...transferee] court, rather than to tie that court's hands with substantive decisions made in this jurisdiction."); Brown v. New York, 947 F.Supp.2d 317, 326 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ("As the Court finds that transfer is appropriate, it defers decision on the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure ......
-
Williams v. Connell
...same witnesses to that forum. See ECF No. 25, at 2 (describing the state action in the Northern District); see also Brown v. New York, 947 F.Supp.2d 317 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (holding that existence of a related federal action in the transferee district weighs heavily in favor of transfer of venue......
-
Clyce v. Butler
...district weighs heavily in favor of transfer when considering judicial economy and the interests of justice." Brown v. New York, 947 F. Supp.2d 317, 326 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). Because the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas is familiar with many of the ......
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Gebert
...for failure to state a claim to allow the transferee court an opportunity to consider the merits of the case. See Brown v. New York, 947 F. Supp. 2d 317, 326 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); Lyon v. Cornell University, 97 Civ. 7070, 1998 WL 226193 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 1998) (Koetl, J.).CONCLUSION For the......