10-3832-cv Gutierrez v. GC Servs. L.P.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A**  **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 17 th** **day of June, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **RALPH K. WINTER,** 8 **BARRINGTON D. PARKER,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **ANGELES GUITIERREZ, on behalf of** 13 **herself and all others similarly** 14 **situated,** 15 **Plaintiff-Appellant ,**  16 17 **-v.- 10-3832-cv** 18 19 **GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,** 20 **Defendant-Appellee**

**.** 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22 23 **FOR APPELLANT:** Adam J. Fishbein, Adam J. Fishbein, P.C., 24 Cedarhurst, New York. 25 26 **FOR APPELLEES:** David M. Schultz (Todd P. Stelter, on the 27 brief ), Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, 28 Illinois. 29 302 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 1 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J. ). 2 3 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 4 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 5 **AFFIRMED**

. 6 7 Plaintiff-Appellant Angeles Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) 8 appeals from the judgement of the United States District 9 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Weinstein, J. ) 10 dated August 27, 2010, dismissing Gutierrez’s complaint 11 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 13 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 14 15 “We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for 16 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 17 under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)(6).” Harris v. Mills , 572 18 F.3d 66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009). We consider the legal 19 sufficiency of the complaint, taking its factual allegations 20 to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the 21 plaintiff’s favor. See id. 22 23 Having conducted a de novo review of the record in 24 light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for 25 substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court 26 in its decision, which is as well-reasoned as it is brief. 27 28 We have considered all of Gutierrez’s remaining 29 arguments and find them to be without merit. For the 30 foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 31 hereby **AFFIRMED**

. 32 33 34 FOR THE COURT: 35 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 36 37