The Honor able De nny Chin, of the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by designation.
T h e H o n o ra b le R o se m a ry S . P o o ler , o rig in a llya m e m b e r o f th is p a n e l, did ** not par t i ci pat e i n t he cons i der at i on of t hi s appea l

. T he t w o r emai ni ng m ember s of t he p a n e l, w h o a re in a g re e m e n t, h a v e d e te rm in e d th e m a tte r. See 28 U

. S. C

. § 46( d) ; 2d C ir. I. O .P . E ; U

ni t ed St at es v. D es i m one , 1 4 0 F

. 3 d 4 5 7 ( 2 d C i r . 1998). 08-5835-cv Brady v. Wing
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T
SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. C I TATI O N TO A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R A FTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED AN D I S GO V ERN ED B Y FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PR OCEDUR E 3 2
. 1 AND T HI S COURT’ S LO C AL RUL E 3 2
. 1
. 1
. W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A DOCUM E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S COURT , A P ART Y M US T CI T E E I TH ER TH E F E DE RAL AP PE NDI X OR AN ELECTR O N I C DA TAB A SE ( W I TH TH E NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” )
. A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.
1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, 3 on the 9 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 Circuit J udg e, 8 DENNYCHI N, * 9 Di s tri ctJ u d ge
. ** 10

________________________________________ 11 Edwar d J Br ady , Of F errisburg h, Addison County , Rosemary B. B rady , Of F errisburg h, Addison 12 County , 13 14 Pla int if

fs -A pp e lla nts , 15 16 v. 17 18 J oan L oringWing, of Rutland, Rutland County , L isa Chalidze, of Be nson, Rutland Count y , 19 Pietro J . Ly

nn, of South Burling ton, Chit tenden County , Ly nn, Thomas & Mihalich, P.C., a 20 V e r

m o n tc o r p o r at i o n w i thp r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f

b u s i n e s s i nB ur l i n g t o n , C h i tt e n d e nC o un ty, G r e g o r y 21 Cla

y ton , o f B arn e t, C a le do nia County , A te n Cl ay

ton & Eaton PL L C, a fo re ign c or

po ra tio n w ith 22 principal plac e of B usiness in L ittleton, New Hampshire , One B eac on Insuranc e Gr oup, Ltd., a 23 fore ign c orporation with principal place of B usiness in Canton, Massachusetts, York I nsuranc e 24 Company

of Maine, a

fore ign c orporation with principal place of B usiness in Canton, 25 Ma ssa c hu se tts , J.W. & D. E. Ryan, Inc ., a Ve rm ont c or

po ra tio n w ithpr inc ipa l pl a c e of B us ine ss 26 in V e rg e nn e s, Ad dis on County , Pe e rl e ss I

ns ur anc e Com

pa ny , Afo re ign c or

po ra tio n w ith 27 principal plac e of business in Ke ene, N ew Ha mpshire, 28 29 De fe nd ants -A pp e lle e s. 30

_______________________________________1 FOR PLAI NTI FF S-APPEL LANTS: Edwar d J . Br ady and Rosemar

y B. B rady , pro s e , 2 Ve rg e nn e s, Ve rm ont. 3 4 FOR DEF ENDAN TS-APPEL L EES: Kave h S. Shahi, Attorney for De fenda

nt-Appellee 5 L isa Chalidze, Cl early , Shahi & Aic her, P.C., 6 Rutland, Vermont; Robert B . Hemley and Paul A. 7 Kea rney , Attorney s for De fenda nts-Appellee s 8 Gr e g or y Cla y ton and At e n, Cla

y ton & Eaton , PL L C, 9 Gravel and Shea , Bur lington, Ve rmont; Robert A. 10 Mello, Attorney for De fenda

nt-Appellee J oan 11 L or ingWing , L aw O ff ic e of Rob e rt A. Me llo , PL C, 12 S o uthB ur l i n g t o n , V e r m o n t ; J o hnE

. B r a dy, 13 Attorney for De fenda

nts-Appellee s OneB eac on 14 Insuranc e Gr oup, Ltd. and York Insuranc e Company 15 of Maine, B rady & Ca llahan, P.C., Springfie ld, 16 Ver mont; S hapleigh Smit h, J r., Attorney for 17 Def endants-A

ppellees Pietro J. Ly

nn and Ly nn, 18 Thomas & Mihalich, Dinse Kna pp & Mc Andre w, 19 P.C., Burling ton, Vermont; Richard J. W indish, 20 Attorney for De fenda

nt-Appellee J .W. & D.E. 21 Ry an, Inc., Ha y nes & Windi sh, P.C., W oodstock, 22 Ver mont. 23 24 25 Appea l from the United States District Court for the District of Ve rmont (Will iam K. 26 Sessions, I I I , Chief Judge ). 27 28 29 UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND 30 DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and he re by is AF F IRM ED

. 31 32 Appellants Edwa rd and Rosema

ry Br ady appea l from the district cour t’s judgme nt
33 dis mis sin gthe ir

c omp la int

fo r l a c k o f s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’
34 familiarity

with the fac ts, procee dings be low, and spec ification of a ppellate issues a

nd hold as
35 fo llo ws
. 36 We reviewthe dismissal of a complaint for la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction de novo.
37 Celestine v. Mount Vernon N eighborhood He alth Ctr., 403 F.3d 76, 79-80 ( 2d Cir. 2005). “A
38 case is properly

dismiss ed for

lack of subject matter jur isdiction under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 12(b)( 1)
39 when the district c ourt lacks the statutory or constitutional power to a djudicate it.” Makarova v.SA O-ARW 1 United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 ( 2d Cir. 2000). A plaintiff a ssertingjurisdiction has the burden
2 of provingthat jurisdiction ex ists by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. I d.
3 Ha

vin gc on du c te d a

n in de pe nd e nt a

nd de no vo re vie w o f t

he re c or d in

light o f t he se
4 principles, we aff

irm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same r easons state d by the
5 district court in its thorough a nd well-re asoned opinion. Ac cording ly , the judg ment of the
6 d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED

. 7 8 F OR TH E CO UR T: 9 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 10 11