Makarova v. USA, Docket No. 99-6089

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMcLAUGHLIN
Citation201 F.3d 110
Parties(2nd Cir. 2000) NATALIA MAKAROVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee
Docket NumberDocket No. 99-6089
Decision Date01 August 1999

Page 110

201 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2000)
NATALIA MAKAROVA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 99-6089
August Term, 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND CIRCUIT
Argued: Nov. 3, 1999
Decided: Jan. 12, 2000

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.), granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

Page 111

MYRON MOSKOVITZ, Law Office of Myron Moskovitz, Esq., Berkeley, CA (Gilbert G. Spencer, Jr., Spencer & Maston, New

Page 112

York, NY, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

DAVID S. JONES, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: McLAUGHLIN, JACOBS, AND SACK, Circuit Judges.

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge:

BACKGROUND

In 1982, Natalia Makarova was injured when a piece of scenery fell on her shoulder at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. At the time of the injury, Makarova was performing in a production of the musical "On Your Toes," and a witness for Makarova asserts that she was widely regarded as the world's best prima ballerina.

The Kennedy Center was the producer of "On Your Toes." As producer, it: (1) contracted with the estates of the musical's authors for the right to "produce and present" the show; (2) contracted directly with the director and stage manager; (3) arranged a letter of credit for bond coverage for the show; (4) paid performers throughout the Washington, D.C. run of the show; and (5) maintained workers' compensation coverage for the show's performers and workers.

The contract for Makarova's services was between the Kennedy Center, as producer, and "NMK Productions, Inc. f/s/o Natalia Makarova." NMK Productions, Inc. was Makarova's "personal services corporation," and the term "f/s/o" means "for the services of."

Makarova personally signed a rider to the contract, certifying "that she [had] read and approved all the terms and conditions of said contract, and agree[d] to perform her services, as performing actress in 'On Your Toes', in accordance with said contract and the [R]ules of the Actors' Equity Association . . . as though the undersigned had entered into this contract" (emphasis added). The rider further provided that Makarova would "perform services hereunder in accordance with the terms and conditions of Actors' Equity Association's Standard Run-of-the-Play Contract," which incorporated by reference a standardized set of protocols called the "Agreement and Rules Governing Employment" ("Agreement and Rules").

The incorporated Agreement and Rules provided that the "[p]roducer agrees to obtain and maintain Workmen's Compensation Insurance Coverage for all Actors . . . in his employ." The Agreement and Rules also included a choice of law provision for employment contracts stating that "[a]ll contracts of employment shall be subject to, be construed by, and all the rights of the parties thereto shall be determined by the laws of the State of New York" (emphasis added).

Her contract required Makarova to: (1) play a specific part in the musical; (2) maintain a contractually specified rehearsal and performance schedule; (3) have her hair styled in accord with the time period of the show; (4) wear shoes and make-up provided by the Kennedy Center; and (5) provide her exclusive services to the Kennedy Center during the term of the contract.

The Kennedy Center ("United States") is part of the Smithsonian Institution, which is owned and operated by the federal government. In 1984, Makarova filed a federal administrative claim against the Kennedy Center for her injuries. In 1997, thirteen years later, Makarova filed a civil suit against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346 (1994) ("FTCA"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.). Makarova claimed that the United States government was responsible for the injuries that she sustained during her fateful performance.

Page 113

The United States moved under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Makarova's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It asserted that Makarova was an employee of the Kennedy Center at the time of her accident, and, thus, her exclusive remedy against her employer was for workers' compensation benefits.

The district court dismissed Makarova's complaint, finding that: (1) she was indeed an employee of the Kennedy Center under governing New York law; and (2) as an employee, her complaint against the United States was barred because the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act was her sole remedy.

Makarova now appeals. She argues that she was not an employee of the Kennedy Center under either New York or District of Columbia law.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

I. Rule 12(b)(1)

Construing all ambiguities and drawing all inferences in Makarova's favor, the district court entered judgment under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal from such a judgment, "we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo." Close v. New York, 125 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1997).

A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a district court, as it did here, may refer to evidence outside the pleadings. See Kamen v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1011 (2d Cir. 1986). A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists. See Malik v. Meissner, 82 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 1996). Makarova has failed to meet that burden here.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2988 practice notes
  • Almakalani v. McAleenan, 18-CV-398 (NGG) (CLP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 16, 2021
    ...a district court must dismiss a case when it "lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).3 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court must accept all material factual allegations in the com......
  • Tigano v. United States, 19-CV-3337 (PKC) (PK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 22, 2021
    ...Procedure] 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). "When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of standing, our standard of review depends on whether the defendant brings a ......
  • Tasaka v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 17-CV-07235 (LDH)(ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 31, 2022
    ...jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. U.S., 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing beyond a preponderance of the evidence that subject-matter jurisdiction ......
  • Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., Inc. v. Currey, Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–398 (JCH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • November 26, 2013
    ...plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists. Id. (citing Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000)).B. Failure to State a Claim A case is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if the Complaint fails to allege facts suff......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2925 cases
  • Almakalani v. McAleenan, 18-CV-398 (NGG) (CLP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 16, 2021
    ...a district court must dismiss a case when it "lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).3 In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the court must accept all material factual allegations in the com......
  • Tigano v. United States, 19-CV-3337 (PKC) (PK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 22, 2021
    ...Procedure] 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). "When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of standing, our standard of review depends on whether the defendant brings a ......
  • Tasaka v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 17-CV-07235 (LDH)(ST)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • March 31, 2022
    ...jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. U.S., 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing beyond a preponderance of the evidence that subject-matter jurisdiction ......
  • Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., Inc. v. Currey, Civil Action No. 3:13–CV–398 (JCH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • November 26, 2013
    ...plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists. Id. (citing Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000)).B. Failure to State a Claim A case is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if the Complaint fails to allege facts suff......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT