Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ilya MANYK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee, Ukrainian Financial Group, Defendant.
    No. 10-3278-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 26, 2011.
    Alexander J. Segal, Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, NY., for Appellant.
    David Fallek (Garrett Duffy, Fogarty, Felicione & Duffy, Mineóla, NY, on the brief), Western Union, LLC, Oakland, CA, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . The Clerk is directed to change the caption of this case to read as indicated above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Ilya Manyk appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting the motion for summary judgment of defendant-appellee Western Union Financial Services (“Western Union”), and denying his motion to reopen discovery pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). See Manyk v. W. Union Fin. Co., No. 07 Civ. 6260, 2009 WL 1490827 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

This appeal arises out of a claim for personal injury against Western Union and Ukrainian Financial Group (“UFG”), a foreign corporation, in which Manyk alleged that he had been assaulted by an employee or agent of UFG or Western Union. Manyk argued that Western Union was vicariously liable for his injuries because the UFG location in which he was assaulted had actual authority to conduct limited types of business on behalf of Western Union.

The District Court granted summary judgment against Manyk, finding that he could not establish grounds for Western Union’s vicarious liability. It also denied his motion to reopen discovery in order to procure additional evidence regarding the relationship between Western Union and UFG. Manyk argues on appeal that the District Court erred by granting summary judgment against him and by denying his motion to reopen discovery.

Having conducted an independent review of the record, we AFFIRM the judgment on appeal for substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its careful Opinion and Order of May 27, 2009. 
      
      . This appeal was originally docketed under No. 09-2651-cv. The original appeal was withdrawn on August 26, 2009 in order to resolve several claims that remained pending in the District Court, and a new appeal was brought under the current docket number on August 16, 2010.
     
      
      . Defendant UFG was voluntarily dismissed from the case when it was determined that its presence destroyed the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). See Manyk v. W. Union Co. Fin. Co., No. 07 Civ. 6260, 2010 WL 3062891 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2010) (Scheindlin, J.). The dismissal of UFG is not at issue on appeal, and UFG is not a party to the appeal.
     
      
      .Manyk does not argue on appeal that the record below supports any other basis for finding an agency relationship to have existed between Western Union and UFG.