MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Nicholas Nesbeth, alleges that each and every one of the twenty-one defendants named in this action violated several state and federal statutes by: (1) discriminating against him on the basis of his disabilities and failing to accommodate those disabilities; (2) failing to cure defects in his residence, which was part of one of the defendants’ housing developments; (3) failing to pay him overtime compensation and misclassifying him as an independent contractor; and by (4) retaliating against him in various ways for complaining about the violations alleged.The defendants are categorized as follows:New York City Property Management LLC; Simsi Advisors, Inc.; Besen Group; Besen Group Investment Realty; Besen Retail LLC; Besen & Associates Inc.; Besen Capital LLC; Besen Residential LLC; Michael Besen; Sanjay Gandhi; and Nancy Black constitute the “Besen defendants”;Hamilton Heights; Hamilton Heights Clusters; Hamilton Heights Cluster Associates, L.P.; and Hamilton Heights Associates LP constitute the “Hamilton Heights defendants”;Aimco; Aimco Properties, L.P.; and Aimco Inc. constitute the “Aimco defendants”; andNew York City Management LLC; City Property Management; and City Property Management & Development, Inc., constitute the “City Management defendants.”The Besen defendants and Hamilton Heights defendants move to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Aimco defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. The City Management defendants have not answered or moved to dismiss the complaint.I.In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff’s favor. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court’s function on a motion to dismiss is “not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient.” Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985). The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff’s possession or that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002).II.The plaintiff was hired as a porter in August 2010 by one of the Hamilton Heights defendants. Compl.
64-65. Because the Hamilton Heights defendants were involved in legal disputes, in July 2015 a court appointed the other groups of defendants as receivers to oversee the business of the Hamilton Heights defendants. Id.
