954 F. Supp. 2d 127
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Centro and Workplace Project sued Town of Oyster Bay and Supervisor Venditto claiming violations of free speech, due process, and equal protection linked to an anti-solicitation ordinance enacted Sept. 29, 2009.
- Ordinance prohibits stopping or attempting to stop vehicles in public rights-of-way to solicit employment, with defined terms of solicit and public right-of-way and several exceptions.
- TRO issued May 20, 2010 and converted to a preliminary injunction June 1, 2010; Second Circuit acknowledged the injunction could be reconsidered but allowed it to remain pending trial.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Centro’s standing; plaintiffs moved to dismiss defendants' counterclaims under 12(b)(1); defendants sought to overturn a protective order restricting discovery.
- Court held: Centro has organizational standing; counterclaims dismissed; protective order affirming non-disclosure of members’ identities upheld; action referred to Magistrate Judge Lindsay for remaining pretrial supervision.
- Centros standing focused on its mission to counsel day laborers and the perceived impairment to its activities from the Ordinance; evidence shows threat of injury to Centro’s advocacy, meeting its standing burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Centro have standing to sue in its own right? | Centro has perceptible impairment to its activities. | Centro lacks injury and cannot sue. | Yes; Centro has organizational standing. |
| Should the court dismiss the defendants' counterclaims as declaratory judgments? | Counterclaims mirror plaintiffs' claims and are unnecessary. | Counterclaims provide independent relief. | Counterclaims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Was the protective order restricting disclosure of member identities proper? | Disclosure would chill association rights. | Discovery needed for defense; minimal chilling effect. | Protective order affirmed; disclosure denied. |
| Is the motion for partial summary judgment on standing appropriate to resolve now? | Standing is established, so summary judgment should not be granted. | Lack of standing for Centro requires dismissal. | Denied; Centro has standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nn ebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2011) (organization standing requires perceptible impairment to activities)
- New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority, 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir.2012) (open access to hearings as a cognizable organizational interest)
- Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir.1973) (representational standing prohibition in this circuit)
- Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 6 F.3d 898 (2d Cir.1993) (standing for organizations to sue on behalf of members)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) (illegality of ads; central Hudson context for illegal activity versus general solicitation)
- Valle Del Sol, Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.2013) (discussion of Central Hudson on speech related to illegal activity)
- Terry v. City of New York, 886 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir.1989) (prima facie show of First Amendment harm for disclosure)