839 F. Supp. 2d 703
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege § 1983 violations and state-law tort claims stemming from the Port Authority's investigation and prosecution of Bertuglia and Laro.
- Laro had a long-standing contract with the Port Authority; a 2004 contract added a $0.76/hour equipment charge, later disputed by Laro.
- Investigators from the Port Authority Office of the Inspector General, led by Schaffler, Ferrone, D’Aleo, and others, conducted the investigation.
- ADA Ruzow and Scotto in New York County prosecuted, resulting in an initial indictment and later a second indictment, which was dismissed in 2009.
- The second indictment and related press releases allegedly harmed Laro's business; Justice Zweibel dismissed the second indictment in October 2009.
- Plaintiffs commenced suit in March 2011, asserting multiple § 1983 claims, Monell claims against the City, and pendent state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman applicability | Plaintiffs argue Rooker-Feldman bars claims arising from state-court judgments. | PA defendants assert preclusive state-court judgment bars federal review. | Rooker-Feldman doctrine denied as inapplicable. |
| Pattern of harassment theory under § 1983 | Plaintiffs plead a due-process pattern of harassment from PA officials to drive business ruin. | Pattern claims should be limited and not pleaded as to all defendants. | Plausible pattern claim allowed against Schaffler; dismissed for remaining PA defendants. |
| Supervisory liability under § 1983 | Supervisors' knowledge, action, or policy could support liability. | Iqbal and Colon factors limit supervisory liability; vague conclusory pleadings fail. | Supervisory liability denied for most claims; some false-arrest/false-prosecution theories allowed against primary PA defendants only. |
| False arrest, malicious prosecution and fair-trial claims | Primary PA defendants allegedly caused false arrest and malicious prosecution; fair-trial claim exists with fabricated evidence. | Grand-jury indictment converts to legal process; absolute immunity on many prosecutorial acts. | False arrest claim dismissed against ADA defendants; malicious prosecution and fair-trial claims largely sustained against primary PA defendants but not against supervisory ones; some immunity defenses apply. |
| Stigma-plus and selective prosecution claims | Defendants' statements damaged reputations and caused business losses; some actions were non-immune. | Press statements and client-contact actions largely fall under prosecutorial immunity; only non-immune acts survive. | Stigma-plus claim against Schaffler survives; other PA supervisors mostly dismissed; selective-prosecution claim against PA supervisors dismissed. |
| Monell and failure-to-train claims against City | City's failure to train and lax discipline caused constitutional violations. | No cognizable policy or widespread practice proven; Connick standard governs. | Monell claim survives as to failure-to-train theory; City’s motion denied; malicious-prosecution state claim dismissed for timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.2007) (pleading standards on Rule 12(b)(6) asserted claims)
- Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, 532 F.Supp.2d 556 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (pleading requirements and plausibility standard)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.2009) (plausibility and non-conclusion-based pleading)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S.1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine discussed in context)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S.1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions)
- Connick v. Thompson, 131 S.Ct. 1350 (U.S.2011) (deliberate indifference and failure-to-train standard)
- Do e v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety ex rel. Lee, 271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir.2001) (plus-factor in stigma-plus doctrine)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.1997) (fair-trial claim and fabricated evidence concepts)