Opinion ID: 808852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robinson-Patman and State Law Claims

Text: We also affirm the district court’s dismissal of Weisshaus’s claims brought under the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13, as well as his state law unjust enrichment claim. In order to state a claim under the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff must adequately plead the existence of an antitrust injury, see E&L Consulting, Ltd. v. Doman Indus. Ltd., 472 F.3d 23, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2006), and here, there is nothing to suggest that any antitrust-related issue is implicated by the allegations in Weisshaus’s complaint. As for Weisshaus’s state law unjust enrichment claim, 3 although the district court did not specifically address the issue, we conclude that the claim was properly dismissed because the district court would have lacked jurisdiction over the claim. See Leecan v. Lopes, 893 F.2d 1434, 1439 (2d Cir. 1990) (“[W]e are free to affirm an appealed decision on any ground which finds support in the record, regardless of the ground upon which the trial court relied.”). Pursuant to the statutes waiving the Port Authority’s statutory sovereign immunity, an individual wishing to bring a state law claim against the Port Authority must file a notice of claim sixty days prior to commencing suit, see N.Y. Unconsol. Laws § 7107 (McKinney); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:1-163, and Weisshaus conceded in his district court filings that he had failed to do so. Compliance with the sixty-day notice requirement is jurisdictional in nature, see Caceres v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 631 F.3d 620, 624-25 (2d Cir. 2011), and, thus, Weisshaus’s failure to serve the notice of claim before filing suit deprived the district court of jurisdiction over any state law claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Weisshaus’s Robinson-Patman and state law unjust enrichment claims. Although Weisshaus also argues the merits of a number of claims that he did not assert in the district court, we decline to address those claims as they are not properly before the Court. See United States v. Lauersen, 648 F.3d 115, 115 (2d Cir. 2011). We also decline to address any claims Weisshaus raised for the first time in his Rule 60(b) motion, as the district court properly declined to address the merits of those claims. Cf. Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is well-settled that Rule 59 [governing motions to alter or amend a judgment] is not a vehicle for . . . presenting the case under new theories . . . or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple[.]” (internal quotation marks omitted)).