16-60 3

Conce pcion v. C ity o f New York



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F A P PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D EN T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AFT E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R ULE O F A P PE L L

A T E P R O C E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D O C U M EN T F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.
At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, on th e 5 day of Ju ly, two th ousan d sev entee n.

th

PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS,

PIERRE N. LEVAL , REENA RAGG I, Circu it Ju dges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X TINA R. CONCEPC ION,

Plain tiff- Appel lant,

-v.- 16-60 3

CITY OF NE W YORK,

Defen dant- Appel lee,

NEW Y ORK C ITY D EPART MENT OF CI TYWID E ADMIN ISTRA TIVE SERVI CES, NEW Y ORK CITY DEPAR TMENT OF H EALTH AND MENTAL HYGIE NE, N EW YO RK CI TY DE PARTMENT O F TRANS PORTA TION, LEGAL AFFAIRS BUREA U OF PARKING ,

Defen dants

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

1FOR A PPELLANT: Peter A. H urwit z, La w Off ice o f Peter A. H urwit z PLL C, Ne w Cit y, NY.

FOR A PPELL EES: Jane L. Go rdon (Dami on K. L. Stodo la on the brief ), fo r Zacha ry W. Cart er, C orpor ation Couns el of the City of Ne w Yor k.

Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Peck, M.J. ).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the magi strat e jud ge be AFFIR MED

.
Tina Conce pcion alle ges t hat N ew Yo rk Ci ty (“ the C ity”) faile d to reaso nably acco mmoda te he r dis abili ties, discr imina ted a gains t her base d on numer ous p rotec ted categ ories , and reta liate d aga inst her f or co mplai ning about those purp orted viol ation s. T he Un ited State s Dis trict Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Peck, M.J. ) dismi ssed the s uit o n sum mary judgm ent. We a ssume the parti es’ f amili arity with the under lying fact s, th e proce dural hist ory, and t he is sues prese nted for r eview

.
1. Con cepci on al leges erro rs in disc overy . Al thoug h her b rief is ob scure , its thru st is that the court erre d in denyi ng he r mot ion t o com pel t he Ci ty to prod uce c ertai n docum ents. We revie w a d enial of a moti on to comp el disco very for a buse of di scret ion. In r e Fit ch, I nc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 ( 2d Ci r. 20 03).

Disco very close d on Novem ber 1 0, 20 15. At th e disco very confe rence the day b efore , the magi strat e jud ge asked Conc epcio n if she w as sa tisfi ed wi th th e Cit y’s perfo rmanc e of its d iscov ery o bliga tions . Co ncepc ion s tated that she d esire d add ition al do cumen ts, a nd (a fter a som ewhat confu sing collo quy) the m agist rate judge orde red t he Ci ty to produ ce ad ditio nal d ocume nts r elati ng to the salar ies o f City emplo yees that had t he sa me or a si milar job title as Conce pcion . Th e mag istra te ju dge t hen a sked Conce pcion wheth er sh e had any addit ional disc overy issu es to rais e, remin ding her t hat t his w as he r las t opp ortun ity t o do so. Conce pcion said , “Th at’s fine. ”

2On No vembe r 20, 2015 , Con cepci on fi led a “mot ion t o

compe l,” s tatin g tha t she had recen tly r ealiz ed th at th e gover nment had not p rovid ed as many docu ments resp ondin g to Conce pcion ’s in itial requ est a s she had thoug ht. The m otion

was v ague and c onclu sory, did not i denti fy th e doc ument s she reque sted with parti cular ity, and d id no t exp lain the impor tance of h er re quest ed do cumen ts. The m agist rate judge

summa rily denie d the moti on, b ut or dered an a dditi onal disco very confe rence . At the confe rence , the magi strat e judge decl ined to co mpel addit ional disc overy
.
The d enial of t he mo tion to co mpel was w ell w ithin the court ’s di scret ion.

Conce pcion sugg ests that the g rant of su mmary judg ment was p reclu ded b y Fed eral Rule of Ci vil P roced ure 5 6(d), 1 which allo ws co urts to de fer c onsid erati on of a su mmary judgm ent m otion , or to is sue o ther appro priat e ord ers, when the n onmov ant “ shows by a ffida vit o r dec larat ion t hat, for speci fied reaso ns, i t can not p resen t fac ts es senti al to justi fy it s opp ositi on” t o sum mary judgm ent. Conc epcio n appea rs to fall well shor t of the r equir ement s of this rule on th e mer its, but i n any even t, sh e did not raise a Ru le 56(d) argu ment befor e the magi strat e jud ge. We de cline to consi der t his a rgume nt fo r the firs t tim e on appea l. S ee Green e v. Unite d Sta tes, 13 F. 3d 57 7, 58 6 (2d Cir. 1994 ).

2. Con cepci on ch allen ges t he di smiss al of her retal iatio n cla ims a nd he r cla ims u nder the A meric ans w ith Disab iliti es Ac t (“A DA”); but her b rief is so lack ing i n argum entat ion t hat w e dee m the clai ms ab andon ed. “It is a 2 settl ed ap pella te ru le th at is sues adver ted t o in a perfu nctor y man ner, unacc ompan ied b y som e eff ort a t devel oped argum entat ion, are d eemed waiv ed.” Tolb ert v

. Queen s Col l., 2 42 F. 3d 58 , 75 (2d C ir. 2 001) (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted).

Conc epcio n cit es a previ ous v ersio n of Rule 56(d) , 1 then codif ied a t Rul e 56( f). There is n o sub stant ive l egal diffe rence betw een t hese versi ons o f the Rule . Se e Fed . R. Civ. P. 56 advi sory commi ttee’ s not e to 2010 amend ment.

Conc epcio n ass erted seve ral o ther cause s of actio n 2 befor e the magi strat e jud ge th at ar e not rais ed on appe al, and a re co nsequ ently aban doned

.
3The m agist rate judge dism issed Conc epcio n’s A DA cl aims

after conc ludin g tha t “[b ]eyon d the bare alle gatio ns in her compl aint, and testi mony that her v ariou s dis abili ties cause pain, Conc epcio n has pres ented litt le ev idenc e as to wh at her i mpair ment is, o r how it s ubsta ntial ly li mits a maj or life activ ity.” Spe cial App’x at 3 0 (ci tatio ns om itted ). “[V]a gue s tatem ents about a pl ainti ff’s diffi culti es . . . , witho ut mo re, w ill n ot su ffice to s uppor t a f indin g of an ADA v iolat ion.” Par ada v . Ban co In dustr ial d e Ven ezuel a, C.A., 753 F.3d 62, 6 9 (2d Cir. 2014 ). S ummar y jud gment was grant ed on the indep enden t gro und t hat “ Conce pcion has not estab lishe d tha t the City fail ed to prov ide h er wi th

reaso nable acco mmoda tions .” S pecia l App ’x at 31. Conce pcion ’s br ief d oes n ot co ntain a su ffici ent e xplan ation of ho w the magi strat e jud ge pu rport edly erred . He r ADA claimis t heref ore d eemed aban doned

.

Moreo ver, Conce pcion conc edes that she c annot surv ive

summa ry ju dgmen t on her A DA cl aim u nless she recei ves t he addit ional disc overy she reque sted. Acc ordin gly, our affir mance of t he de nial of th e mot ion t o com pel c onsti tutes an in depen dent groun d to affir m the gran t of summa ry judgm ent o n the ADA claim

.

Conce pcion ’s re talia tion claim s are deem ed ab andon ed. The m agist rate judge care fully cons idere d Con cepci on’s

numer ous a llega tions of r etali ation , and foun d tha t the y
were concl usory , did not invol ve pr otect ed ac tivit ies, did not r esult in a dvers e emp loyme nt ac tions , and invo lved nondiscr imina tory actio ns ta ken b y the City for an un rebut ted, legit imate purp ose. Conc epcio n’s b rief fails to a ddres s these dete rmina tions in a mean ingfu l way , con cluso rily recit ing t hat “ compe tent evide nce” showe d tha t the City ’s justi ficat ions were not l egiti mate if ev ery i nfere nce i s taken in h er fa vor. Appe llant ’s Op ening Br. at 31 . Th e lack of a subst antia l att empt to de velop Conc epcio n’s argum ents dooms her claim s. S ee To lbert , 242 F.3d at 7 5.

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , and find ing n o mer it in Conce pcion ’s ot her a rgume nts, we he reby AFFIR M the j udgme nt of th e dis trict cour t.

FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

4