08 -23 17 -cv Ford v . D .C. 37 Union L oca l 1549 1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 3 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 4 5 6 7 August Term, 2008 8 9 (Argued: August 6, 2009 Decide d: Aug ust 25, 2009) 10 11 Docke t No. 08-2317-c v 12 13 14 15 16 17 ROXANNE F ORD, 18 19 Plaintif f-Appellant , 20 21 -v.- 22 23 D.C. 37 UNI ON L OCAL1549, 24 25 Defendant- Appellee

. 26 27 28 29 30 Be fore : McLAUGHL I N, CALAB RESIand RAGGI , Circuit Judges

. 31 32 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 33 New Y ork (Chin, Judge ). AF FI RMED. 34 35 36 Rox anne F ord, pr o s e , New Y ork, NY, for Plain tiff37 Appellant. 38 39 Robin Roach, Senior Assistant Gener al Counsel, District 40 Counsel 37, AFSCME, AFL -CI O, New York, NY , for 41 Defendant- Appellee

. 42 43 44 452 1 PER

CU RIAM : 2 Appellant Rox anne F ord, pr o s e , appea ls the district court’s judg ment g rantingthe 3 de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to dis mis s App e lla nt’ s c omp la int

a lle g inga

br e a c h o f t

he duty of fa ir 4 repr esentation under the L abor Ma nag ement Relations Act ( “L MRA”), 29 U.S.C. 5 § 185 et seq ., for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. W e assume the parties’ familiarity with the 6 un de rl yingfa c ts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 7 Th is C ourt re vie ws de novo a

dis tr ic t c ourt

de c isi on dis mis sin ga

c omp la int

purs ua nt t o 8 Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 1), construingthe complaint libera lly and ac ceptingall fac tual alleg ations 9 in the complaint as true. See Triestman v. F ed. Bureau of Prisons , 470 F.3d 471, 474 ( 2d Cir. 10 2006). Dismissal of a c ase f or lac k of subject matter

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)( 1) is proper 11 “whe n the district court lac ks the statutory or constitutional power to a djudicate it.” Makarov a v. 12 United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 ( 2d Cir. 2000). 13 As the languag e of the L MRA makes plain, public employ ees a re not c overe d by

that 14 statute. See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) (exempting f rom the def

inition of employ er “ any

State or 15 po lit ic a l su

bd ivi sio n th e re of

” ). Th e po int

is s uf fi c ie ntl y c le ar s o th at it

ha s b e e n r outin e ly 16 addre ssed by

summary order s. Se e Ba um ga rt v . S ton yBroo k Chi ldre n’

s S e rv ., P. C. , 2 49 F. 17 Ap p’ x 851 , 8 52 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ) ( un pu bli sh e d) ; Ma

je sk e v . Co ng re ss o f Co nn . Co mt

y . Co lls

. , No. 18 98 -7 22 6, 19 98 WL90 79 15 , at *2 n. 2 ( 2d Cir . D e c . 2 3, 19 98 ); Sm ith v . U nite d F e d’n o f Te ac he rs , 19 No . 9 7- 76 78 , 1 99 8 WL 63 97 56 , at *1 (2 d Ci r. Ma r. 26 , 1 99 8) . T he Sup re me Court ha s a lso 20 taken this view, whic h we a re bound to follow. See N.L.R.B. v. Natural Gas Util. Dist. of 21 Hawkins County, Tenn. , 4 02 U. S. 6 00 , 6 02 -0 3 ( 19 71 ) ( ho ldi ng that a Te nn e sse e pu

bli c uti lity 22 district was not an “ employ er” under § 152( 2) bec ause it wa s a “political subdivision” of3 1 Te nn e sse e ); see also PoliceDep’ t of the Cit y of Chicago v. Mosle

y , 408 U.S. 92, 102 n.9 (1972) 2 (“[T]he National L abor Relations Act specific ally exempts S tates and subdivisions . . . from the 3 definition of ‘e mploy er’ within the Act.”) . We deem it appropr iate to issue a published opinion 4 and ther eby

make c lear

beyond pera dventure that this is t he law of our Circuit. 5 Appellant cla ims, on appeal, that he r employ er is not a political subdivision of New Y ork 6 and questions whethe r it was a ma y oral a g ency . I t is clear to us, howe ver, that the New Y ork 7 City

De pa rtme nt o f H e a lthand

Me nta l H yg ie ne is a

“ po lit ic a l su

bd ivi sio n” of

Ne w Y or k th at is 8 exempt under § 152(2). 9 Fur

thermore , the district court did not err in failing to addre ss any

state law c laim that the 10 complaint could be c onstrued to be r aising

. See 28 U. S.C. 13 67 (c )( 3) ; Carnegie-Me llon Univ. v. 11 Coh ill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (“ [I ]n t he usual c ase in whic h all fede ral-la w claims ar e 12 e lim inate d b e fo re tr ia l, t he ba lanc e of

fa c tor s . . . wi ll p oint to wa rd de c lin ingto e xer c ise 13 jurisdiction over the re maining state-lawclaims.”). 14 F or

the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED

.