Opinion
No. 1:10-cv-4178 (ERK) (RER)
09-26-2011
JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
KORMAN, J.:
The defendant has moved to dismiss three of the five causes of action alleged in the complaint. Two related causes of action would survive the motion to dismiss. My basic policy, which I have applied repeatedly, is that
[i]f one of a number of integrally related causes of action have to be tried, it makes no sense to grant summary judgment as to one or more of them, as it may prove necessary to hold yet another trial in the event that it is determined on appeal that summary judgment was improperly granted. As observed by Judge Clark in an analogous context:Manzi v. DiCarlo, 62 F.Supp.2d 780, 793 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), quoting Audi Vision Inc. v. RCA Mfg. Co., 136 F.2d 621, 625 (2d Cir.1943); see also Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., No. 98-4265, 1999 WL 1132463, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1999), Phillips v. Better Homes Depot, Inc., No. 02-1168, 2003 WL 25867736, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2003), DePace v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, No. 02-4312, 2004 WL 1488312, at *14-15 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 16, 2004), Friedman v. New York City Admin, for Children's Services, No. 04-3077, 2005 WL 2436219, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2005).
'[T]here seems no question that in the long run fragmentary disposal of what is essentially one matter is unfortunate not merely for the waste of time and expense caused the parties and the courts, but because of the mischance of differing dispositions of what is essentially a single controlling issue.'
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss counts one, three, and five is denied without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate time.
SO ORDERED.
Brooklyn, New York
September 26, 2011
Edward R. Korman
Senior United States District Judge