The Honorable Edw ard R. Korman, of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for the Ea stern * Di s tr ict of New Yor k, s it ti ng b y de s ign ati on . The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the officia l caption of this action to conform ** to th e cap ti onlis te d ab ov e. 1 10- 375- cv Is aa cso n v . N ew Y ork O rga n D on or N etw ork UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

### S UM M ARY ORD ER Ru ling s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ia l e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto su m m ar y o r de r s f il ed on or af ter January 1, 2007, is per mitt ed and is g overned by Feder al Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and this court ’s Local Rule 32.1.1 . When citing a sum mary or der in a d ocumentfiled with this cour t, a party m ust cite eith er the F ederal Appendix or an electroni c database (with t he notati on “summ ary ord er”). A part y citing a sum mary or der m ust serve a copy of it onany party n ot rep resented by coun sel. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he ld at the Daniel Pa trick Moynihan United Sta tes Courthous e, 500 Pea rl Street, in the City of New Y ork, on the 4 day of January, tw o thousand eleven. th P R E S E N T : J OS É A. C AB R ANES , D ENNY C H IN , Circuit Jud

ges , E DWA R D R. K O RMAN ,

District Judge. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x J OA N M. I S A A C S ON ,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt ,
-v .- No . 10 -3 75- cv N E W Y O RK O R GA N D O NO R N ETWO RK , E L AI NE B ERG , CE O, J AC KI E C OO L EY , Director, Y UR I Y Y US HK OV , Manage r,

Defenda nts-App ellees

. **

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR P LAIN TIF F
- AP P ELLAN T: A ND R E W J. S C H A T K IN , J er ich o, NY. FOR D EFENDANTS- APPELLEES: R O BERT I. G OS S EE N (A nn e D. T abac k, on the brief ), Gan fe r & Sh or e, L

LP , N ew Yo r k, N Y. Appea l from a December 30, 200 9, judgment of the United Sta tes Dis trict Court for the So uthern D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Rich ar d M . B er man , Judge

).
UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND DECREED th at t

he j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. Pl ain ti ff -A pp ell ant

J oanM . I s aacs onbr ought this act io n ag ain s t h er

emp lo yer , the N ew York Organ Donor Network (“NYODN”), alleg ing discrimination and retali ation in viola tion of Tit le VI I of th e Civ il Right s Act

of 196 4, 4 2 U. S.C. § 20 00e , et seq . She a lso s ued NYODN and th r ee o f i ts emp lo yees un der New Yor k s tat e law , alleg

in g a co mm onlaw c lai m o f i nt ent io nal in fl ict io n o f e mo ti on al dis tr es s . T he D is tr ict Cou r t c on clu dedth at I s aacs on ’s com pl ain t i s ti mebarred purs uant to 42 U.S.C . § 2000e -5(f) (1). Accordingly , the Distr ict Court granted summary ju dgm ent infa vo r of def end ant s pu r s uan t t o F ede r al Rule o f Ci vil Pr oce du r e 56

. On appea l, Isaacson argues that the Distr ict Court erred by (1) concluding that she aban do nedat tr

ial th e claim th at s he n ever

r ecei veda r igh t- to -s ue l et te r

fr om th e EEO C; (

2) declini ng to apply the doctrine of equitable tolli ng to preserve her claim; a nd (3) declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her s tate lawclai m. We a ss ume the parties’ familiarity with th e un der lyi ng f act s andpr oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e. We revi ew orders granting summary judgment de novo , and we will a ffir m only if the record, vie wedinth e light

mo s t f avo r abl e t o the n on mo ving pa r ty , r eveals no gen ui ne i s s ue o f m ate r ial fa ct . See Fe d. R. Civ . P . 56 (c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U. S. 2 42, 247 -4 8 ( 198 6) ; Redd v. Wri gh t , 59 7 F .3d532 , 53 5- 36 (

2dCir . 20 10)

. There is a pres umption in this circuit that a mailed doc ument is received three da ys after its mailing, see B ald

win Coun ty Welcome Ctr. v. Bro wn , 466 U.S. 1 47, 148 n. 1 (198 4), when the pe rs on who mailedth e do cum ent fo llo wedr egular

of fi ce p r act ice a ndpr oce du r e or

has actual

kn owl edg e of hav in g m ail ed the d ocu men t, Meckel v. Continenta l Res. Co. , 75 8 F .2d811 , 81 7 ( 2dCir . 19 85)

. T hi s pr es um pt

io n m ay be r ebu tt ed b y admis s ib le ev id enc e that

th e do cum ent

was no t m ail ed, was r ecei vedlat e, o r

was nev er

r ecei ved , Sherlock v

. Montefior e Med. Ctr. , 84 F.3d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 1996), bu t “ [t ]h e me r e de ni al o f r ecei pt

do es no t r ebu t that

pr es um pt io n. ” Meckel

, 84F. 2dat 8 17. Her e, an affidavi t by the employe e of the EE OC responsible for preparing and ma iling Isaacson’s rightto -s ue l et te r

te s ti fy in g t o the f

act th at s he p er s on ally maile d the l et te r inacco r dan ce wi thr egularBecause we conclude that Is aac son failed to offer any evidenc e to rebut the presumpt ion 1 that she received the Right-to-Sue Letter more than ninety day s befor e filing her cla im, we ne ed not consider whether the Distr ict Court erred in concluding that Is aac son conceded rec eipt.
3 of fi ce p r act ice a ndpr oce du r e onOct ob er 18, 200 8 is s uf

fi cien t t o es tab lis h the r ebu tt abl e pr es um pt io n that th e let te r was r ecei vedonOct ob er

21, 200 8. O th er

th an h er denial , I s aacs onhas of fe r ed n o ev

id enc e “f r om whi ch i t c ouldr eas on ably be in fe r r ed e ither th at the n ot

ice w as mailed lat er th an i ts ty

pewr it te n d ate or

th at i t t oo k lo nge r

th an thr ee d ays to r eachher by m ail .” Sherlock , 84 F .3dat 5 26. We ther ef or e agr ee wi thth e Di s tr

ict Cou r t that

I s aacs onhas faile d t o p r ov e s pec if ic f act s to r ebu t the p r es um pt io n o f r ecei pt

of th e Rig ht -t o- Su e L et te r . Isaacson v. New Yor k Organ Donor Netwo rk , No. 08-CV-9545 , at *8 (S.D.N.Y . Dec. 30 , 2009).
M or eov er , h avi ng c on du ct ed a de novo review, w e conc lude, for subs tantially the reasons s tat ed b y the D is tr

ict Cou r t, id. , that Isaacson has not demonstrated the type of extraordinary cir cum s tan ces th at w ouldmer it th e app lic ati onof

equ it abl e t olling inthis cas e. See Bo os v . Ru nyon , 201 F. 3d178 , 18 5 (

2dCir . 20 00) (p laci ng the b ur denonth e pl ain ti ff to dem on s tr ate th at e quit abl e tolling should be applie d, and noting that va gue or conclusory assertions are “insufficient to justif y any f ur th er in quir y in to to lli ng”). We ther ef or e ho ldth at, bec aus e I s aacs on ’s com pl ain t i s ti mebarred, the Distr

ict Court correctly dismiss ed her Title VII claim. 1
Fi nally, I s aacs onclai ms th at the D is tr ict Cou r t e r r ed i n r ef

us in g t o ex er cis e s up pl eme nt al jurisdiction over her pendent state law cl aims purs uant to 28 U.S.C . § 1367. We revi ew the Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s dec is io n n ot

to exer cis e s up pl eme nt al j ur is di ct io n f or “ab us e of di s cr et io n. ” N. Y. Me rc anti le Exc h., In c. v. I nte rc o nti ne ntal Exc h., In c ., 497 F.3d 109, 1 13 (2d Cir. 2007). “ A district court has abu s ed i ts di s cr et

io n i f i t [ has ] b as ed i ts r ul

in g onan err on eou s vie w of th e law or ona cle arly erroneous ass essment of

the evide nce, or rendered a de cision that cannot be l ocated within the r ang e of permi s s ib le d ecis io ns .” Sims v. Blot , 5 34 F.3 d 1 17 , 1 32 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ) (c it a ti on , a lt er a ti on s, and quotation marks omitted). Because “[n]eedle ss decisions of s tate lawshould be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice betwee n the parties, by procuring for them a surerfo ot ed r eadi ng o f a pp lic abl e law ,” Uni te d M ine Wo rk er s o f A m. v . Gi bbs , 383 U.S. 7 15, 726 (1966), where, a s here, the Distr

ict Court has properly dismis sed the underlying federal clai m, we c annot say that it was an a buse of dis cretion for the Dis trict Court to dis miss the state claim without pr eju di ce as well

. See Purgr ess v . Sharrock , 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir. 1994).Con clu di ng, onfi nal analys is , that

I s aacs on ’s clai ms lack

mer it do es no t i mp ly that

her 2 app eal “ was br ought

witho ut th e s lig ht es t c han ce o f s ucc es s .” Bankers Tr ust Co. v. Publicker Indu s. Inc. , 6 41 F.2 d 1 36 1, 13 67 (2 d C ir. 19 81 ). W e t he re fore de ny a pp el le es’ mo ti on for sa nc ti on s a ga in st I s s acs onandher

cou ns el p ur s uan t t o F ede r al Rule o f A pp ell ate Pr oce du r e 38

. 4 CONCLUSI ON We ha ve considered ea ch of Is aac son’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without me rit

. For t he re a son s sta te d a bo ve , t he ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

. 2
FO R T HE CO URT Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk