1 14-1561-cv Suares v. Cityscape Tours, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECO ND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AF TER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROC EDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPEND IX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATAB ASE (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 for the Seco nd Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United Stat es Courthouse, 40 Foley Sq uare, in the City of New York, on the 5 th day of March, tw o thousand fifteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges

.

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- DENISE O. SUARES, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. No. 14-1561-cv CITYSCAPE TOURS, INC., dba City Sights New York; JAD TRANSPORTATION, INC., dba City Sights New York; CITY SIGHTS NEW YORK LLC; CHANDRASHEKAR SINGH, Defendants-Appellees

. *

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- FOR APPELLANT: Regina Felton, Felt on & Associates, Brooklyn, New York.

* The Clerk of Court is directed to ame nd the official caption as shown above.2 FOR APPELLEES: Christopher A. D’ Angelo and Debra Kobrin Levy, Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, New York, New York, for Cityscape Tours, Inc. and JAD Transportation, Inc. Stanley L. Goodman, Fox Ro thschild LLP, Roseland, New Jersey, for City Sights New York LLC. Chandrashekar Singh, pro se, South Ozone Park, New York. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entere d on April 7, 2014, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Denise O. Suares appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of defendants Cityscape Tours, Inc. (“Cityscape”), JAD Transportation, Inc. (“JAD,” and collectively with Cityscape, the “JAD Defend ants”), City Sights New York LLC (“City Sights”), and Chandrashekar Si ngh (“Singh”). Suares conten ds that the district court erred (1) by denying her summary judgment moti on for failure to comply with Rule 56.1 of

the Local Civil Rules of the United States Di strict Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York (“Local Rule 56.1 ”); (2) by deeming ad mitted the facts in defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 statements; and (3) in holdin g that City Sights was not Suares’s employer. We review the district c ourt’s adherence to Loca l Rule 56.1 for abuse of discretion, see Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001), and its summary judgment award de no vo, see Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield Cnty., Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F. 3d 183, 192 (2d Cir. 2014 ). We assume the3 parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 1. Denial of Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Local Rule 56.1 requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit a “short and concise statement, in numbered paragra phs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be trie d” and requires that each numbered paragraph be supported “by citation to evidence” in the record. Local Rule 56.1(a), (d). It further puts litigants on notice that “[f]ailu re to submit such a statement may constitute grounds for denial of the moti on.” Local Rule 56.1(a ). Plaintiff’s Local

Rule 56.1 statement contained no record citations. See J.A. 751–53. The district court

therefore acted within its disc retion in denying plaintiff’s mo tion. See Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 14 0 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that “unsupported assertions [in a

Local Rule 56.1 statemen t] must . . . be disregarded”); Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d at 73 (“A district court has broad discretion to determin e whether to overlook a party’s failure to comply with local cour t rules . . . [and] is not required to consider what the parties fail to point out in their Loca l Rule 56.1 statements . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). At any rate, the record evidence in no way ju stifies any contention that summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropria te. To the contrary, as noted below, the record warrants summary judgment for defendants.4 2. Deeming Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 Statements Admitted Local Rule 56.1 requires a party op posing summary judg ment to submit a

counterstatement with numbere d paragraphs corresponding to each paragraph in the moving party’s statement. See Local Rule 56.1( b). The rule states that each paragraph of the movant’s statement that is not “speci fically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in” the counterstatement “w ill be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion.” Local Rule 56.1(c). Here , plaintiff did not submit a counterstatement and, thus, failed to controve rt any paragraphs in defenda nts’ statements. Moreover, plaintiff has not identified any paragraphs in defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 statements that are not supported by citations to admissible evidence. See Giannu llo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d at 140. Alt hough plaintiff contends th at paragraph 12 of the JAD

Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 statement is unsu pported by its citations, that contention is belied by the record. See JAD Defs.’ Local Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 12, J.A. 19 (stating Singh was fired and citing disc iplinary form and affidavit); J.A. 353 (disciplinary form regarding Singh with box checked for termination); J.A. 500 (affidavit recounting Singh’s firing). 1 Accordingly, the district court acted w ithin its discretion in deeming all facts in

1 The district court admonished plaintiff fo r misrepresenting facts. See Suares v. Cityscape Tours, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 5650 (AJN ), 2014 WL 9696 61, at *4 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2014). Nevertheless, plaintiff and her attorney, Regina Felton, have repeated on appeal the same misleading stat ements they made below. See Appellant’s Br. 19 n.1. In addition, plaintiff’s contention that the doc umentary proof of te rmination was only a “‘Warning’ for inappropriate behavior,” id. at 17, is simply untrue, see J.A. 353. We remind plaintiff and Ms. Felton that bad-faith litigation conduct is sanctionable. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46–47 (1991); accord Ransmeier v. Mariani, 718 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2013); see al so Fed. R. App. P. 46(c).5 defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 st atement admitted. See T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep’ t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 418 (2d Ci r. 2009) (“A nonmoving party’s failu re to respond to a Rule 56.1 statement permits the court to conclude that the facts asserted in the statement are uncontested and admissible.”). Those facts cl early demonstrate that defendants met their

burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any of plaintiff’s claims, and that summary judgment in favo r of defendants was therefore appropriate. 3. City Sights’s Liability Plaintiff argues that the district court in correctly held that City Sights was not Suares’s employer and therefore was not liabl e on any of her claims. Plaintiff does not, however, meaningfully challenge the district court’s independent holding that all of her claims fail even against an employer. See LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that issues not raised on appeal are abandoned); accord Sledge v. Kooi, 564 F.3d 105, 106 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2009). Under th ese circumstances, summary judgment in favor of City Sights would st and whether or not it might be considered plaintiff’s employer, and we, theref ore, need not reach the issue. We have considered plaintiff’s remaini ng arguments and concl ude that they are

without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLF E, Clerk of Court