KREGLER v. City of New York
770 F. Supp. 2d 602
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Kregler applied for appointment as City Marshal after retiring from FDNY; DOI conducted background check and training; he completed training in Oct 2005 but was not appointed in Mar 2006; allegations include a public endorsement of Morgenthau and a retaliatory, pretextual denial involving Garcia and Hearn; Naberezny joined as a defendant in the Second Amended Complaint; prior rulings dismissed the First Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint was remanded by the Second Circuit
- Kregler alleges a First Amendment §1983 retaliation claim based on his adverse employment action (denial of appointment) due to protected speech (endorsement of Morgenthau) and seeks damages; defendants argue lack of personal involvement and lack of authority to remedy the alleged wrong; Naberezny challenges timeliness and relation-back
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hearn is personally liable for retaliation | Counsel admission at Rule 12(i) Hearing binds Hearn | Admission should bind only if truly a judicial admission; record shows contested issues | Converted to summary judgment; decision deferred pending briefing |
| Whether Schwam and Keenaghan are personally involved | Had knowledge of an unconstitutional act and could have intervened | Lacked authority to remedy and not ultimate decision makers | Converted to summary judgment; law-of-the-case issues unclear; briefing ordered |
| Whether Grogan is personally liable | Grogan and Garcia allegedly conspired to bar Kregler’s appointment | Grogan lacked authority to remedy; not final decision maker | Converted to summary judgment; additional briefing ordered |
| Whether Naberezny's claims are time-barred and relate back | Rule 15(c) relates back; Naberezny knowledge alleged late but could relate back | Untimely under §1983; relation back requires no prejudice and knowledge | Claims relate-back analysis continued; discovery ordered on Naberezny’s knowledge; Naberezny's dismissal converted to summary judgment |
| Whether the cross-motion to preclude evidence should be granted | Defendants failed to respond to discovery and should be sanctioned | Local Rule 37.2 compliance required; no justification presented | Denied; discovery rules applied; no informal conference warning given |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; facts must plausibly show claim)
- Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2004) (causal connection in First Amendment retaliation)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (personal involvement requirement for §1983 claims)
- Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (five ways to show supervisor personal involvement)
- Koulkina v. City of New York, 559 F. Supp. 2d 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (supervisory liability and intervention limits)