NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo (2019)

But we have not held that comparators must be identical; rather, that “a plaintiff must show an extremely high degree of similarity between itself and its comparators.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208, 221 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejecting defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s equal protection claim failed “because the [plaintiff] has not provided a single…

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, asking “whether the allegations in the complaint, taken as true, state a plausible claim for relief.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 189 (2d Cir. 2019).

In NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2019), a real-estate developer arranged to work with the City of Buffalo “to build affordable housing on City-owned land” through “a project that would be financed in large part by public grants, loans, and tax exemptions.” Id. at 183.

Beyond the ordinary common-law elements of an implied contract, New York law “impose[s] additional requirements on municipal contracting ‘to protect the public from corrupt or ill-considered actions by municipal officials.’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 200 (2d Cir. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Henry Modell & Co. v. other than state positive or common law.

“To create a binding contract under New York law, the parties must provide a ‘manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that they are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms.’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 199 (2d Cir. 2019) (brackets omitted) (quoting Stonehill Cap.

Ordinarily, equal protection claims arise from allegations that the government's classifications "treat certain groups of citizens differently than others." NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2019).

See Bogan, 523 U.S. at 48 (explaining that the U.S. Constitution and federal common law “protect[s] legislators from liability for their legislative activities”); NRP Holdings LLC, 916 F.3d at 190 (describing the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity as a matter of common law created by the U.S. Supreme Court and applicable to federal civil claims).

Sadowski seems to misunderstand what is meant by a “class of one.” The “class of one” theory of Equal Protection permits a “single individual” to “claim a violation of her Equal Protection rights based on arbitrary treatment,” in contrast to the traditional application of Equal Protection which protects “groups of citizens” from being treated “differently than others.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

Ordinarily, equal protection claims arise from allegations that the government's classifications "treat certain groups of citizens differently than others." NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

Under New York law, “[a] plaintiff may establish promissory estoppel through proving three elements: (1) the defendant’s “clear and unambiguous promise”; (2) upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied; (3) to [their] detriment.” Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 507 F. Supp. 3d 406 , 421 (N.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019)).

Legal Standard for a Civil RICO Claim To state a civil RICO claim, Plaintiff must adequately plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [his] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured “by reason of” a substantive RICO violation).

See Torres-Rivera v. Calderon- 3 Serra, 412 F.3d 205, 213 (1st Cir. 2005); NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 191 (2d Cir. 2019); Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 201 (3d Cir. 2007); Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty., 684 F.3d 462, 470 (4th Cir. 2012); La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 68 F.4th 228 , 238 (5th Cir. 2023); Anders v. Cuevas, 984 F.3d 1166 , 1181 (6th Cir. 2021); McCann v. Brady, 909 F.3d 193, 196 (7th Cir. 2018); Le…

Where a plaintiff does not allege an equal protection violation premised on his membership in a protected class, he may still proceed under a “class-of-one” theory, “under which a single individual can claim a violation of her Equal Protection rights based on arbitrary disparate treatment.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Compl. ¶ 162 (asserting, “in the alternative, [that] Plaintiff is also a ‘class of one’”).

(Id.) Third, Plaintiffs argue Mrs. Doe and the Doe Children’s equal protection claims are viable under a “class-of-one theory.” (Id. at 24.) (citing NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208, 221 (2d Cir. 2012)) (“[T]he Supreme Court has also … endorsed ‘a class-of-one theory for equal protection claims, under which a single individual can claim a violation of her Equal Protection rights based…

This Court agrees. “[U]nder the common law, state and local government officials . . . enjoy absolute immunity against federal civil claims asserted against them in their individual capacities” for “conduct that falls ‘within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 190 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503 (1975)).

To state a civil RICO claim, Plaintiff must adequately plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [his] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured “by reason of” a substantive RICO violation).

To succeed under a class-of-one theory, Plaintiffs must demonstrate “[1] that [they have] been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and [2] that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal citation omitted). ‘“[C]lass-of-one plaintiffs must show an extremely high degree of similarity between themselves and the persons to whom they compare themselves.’” Ruston v. Town…

See Merex I, 810 F. Supp. at 1369 ; NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

To state a civil RICO claim, a complaint must plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [the plaintiffs’] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured “by reason of” a substantive RICO violation).

To state a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 , a complaint must plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [the plaintiffs’] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured by reason of a substantive RICO violation).

However, in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), the Supreme Court also recognized "'a class-of-one theory for equal protection claims, under which a single individual can claim a violation of [his or] her Equal Protection rights based on arbitrary disparate treatment.'" NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted).

Corp., 757 F. App’x 26 , 30 (2d Cir. 2018); NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (“To establish a claim of promissory 8 At various points in its opposition briefing Plaintiff argues that one of its claims must survive summary judgment because Judge Mann held that it pled sufficient facts to state a claim and survive a motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION A. RICO Legal Standard To state a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 , a complaint must plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [the plaintiffs’] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured “by reason of” a substantive RICO …

“To create a binding contract under New York law, the parties must provide a ‘manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that they are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms.’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 199 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Stonehill Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 448 (2016)) (alterations omitted); see also Starke, 913 F.3d at 288 (“It is a basic tenet of contract law that, in order to b…

To plead promissory estoppel, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant made a “clear and unambiguous promise, upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied, to its detriment.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (brackets and quotations omitted).

To state a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must allege “that the [defendant] made a clear and unambiguous promise, upon which the [plaintiff] reasonably relied, to its detriment.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted).

To state a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must allege “that the [defendant] made a clear and unambiguous promise, upon which the [plaintiff] reasonably relied, to its detriment.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019).

“To establish a class-of-one claim, a plaintiff must show an extremely high degree of similarity between [her]self and [her] comparators.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

NRPHoldings LLCv.City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

The Court agrees with the Karczes. “[U]nder the common law, state and local government officials . . . enjoy absolute immunity against federal civil claims asserted against them in their individual capacities” for “conduct that falls ‘within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 190 (2d Cir. 2019) (first excerpt quoting Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 49 (1998)) (second quoting Eastland v. U. S. Servicemen's F…

Promissory Estoppel “Under New York law, municipal defendants may not be subject to promissory estoppel claims except in rare cases of ‘manifest injustice[.]’” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing N.Y.

Under New York law, “[t]o establish a claim of promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant made a clear and unambiguous promise, upon which the plaintiff reasonably relied, to its detriment.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added) (applying New York law).

NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 199 (2d Cir. 2019); Brown v. Cara, 420 F.3d 148, 153 (2d Cir. 2005); IDT Corp. v. Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., 23 N.Y.3d 497, 502-03 (2014).

DISCUSSION A. RICO Claims To state a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), a complaint must plead (1) “that the individual defendants committed a substantive RICO violation” and (2) “that the violation proximately caused an injury to [the plaintiffs’] business or property.” NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 196 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c) (providing a private right of action for persons injured “by reason of” a substantive RICO viola…

“A cause of action for promissory estoppel under New York law requires the plaintiff to prove three elements: 1) a clear and unambiguous promise; 2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise; and 3) injury to the relying party as a result of the reliance.” Kaye v. Grossman, 202 F.3d 611, 615 (2d Cir. 2000); see also NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

“A cause of action for promissory estoppel under New York law requires the plaintiff to prove three elements: 1) a clear and unambiguous promise; 2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance on that promise; and 3) injury to the relying party as a result of the reliance.” Kaye v. Grossman, 202 F.3d 611, 615 (2d Cir. 2000); see also NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 202 (2d Cir. 2019).

Bell has thus failed to establish that “no rational person” could regard her circumstances to differ from the other nurses “to a degree that would justify the differential treatment on the basis of a legitimate government policy.” Hu, 927 F.3d at 92 ; see also NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 198 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that silence on the details of a purported comparator was “fatal” to a class-of-one theory). * * * We have considered Bell’s remaining argu…

We generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, see Siemens Energy, Inc. v. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., 82 F.4th 144 , 2The same facts would also make Sasson and Blust directly liable as “sellers” of debt- relief services, see 16 C.F.R. § 310.4 (a)(5)(i), defined in the TSR is “any person who . . . provides, offers to provide, or arranges for others to provide goods or services to the customer,” id. § 310.2(ee); see also NRP Holdings LLC v. Ci…

See NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177 , 189 n.6 (2d Cir. 2019). 5 1 violation of the GVUL policy’s terms, when it charged them smokers’ rates 2 despite their non-smoking status.

See NRP Holdings, 916 F.3d at 193 (holding that mayor was entitled to legislative immunity for “decision not to introduce the resolutions for Common Council action”).

See NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 192 (2d Cir. 2019).

See Kutluca, 266 F. Supp. 3d at 700 n.13 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). parties] are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms.” Hu v. Whaleco, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 3d 265 , 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 199 (2d Cir. 2019).

See, e.g., NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177, 192-93 (2d Cir. 2019) (finding that failure to introduce legislation was legislative in form and in substance); Yeldell v. Cooper Green Hosp.

See NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court has . . . endorsed a class-of-one theory for equal protection claims, under which a single 10 To the extent Levine claims to be part of a protected class due his status as “an ex-offender,” (Compl. ¶ 103), the court is not persuaded, see Bottom v. Pataki, No. 9:03-CV-835, 2006 WL 2265408 , at *2 (N.D.N.Y.

See NRP Holdings LLC v. City of Buffalo, 916 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[T]he Supreme Court has . . . endorsed a class-of-one theory for equal protection claims, under which a single individual can claim a violation of her Equal Protection rights based on 37 arbitrary disparate treatment.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).