278 F.R.D. 55
E.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Patricia Lynch criticized The Southampton Animal Shelter's euthanasia policy and operations while volunteering; Lynch I found Town liable for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After privatization, The Southampton Animal Shelter Foundation took over; Lynch's 2010 volunteer application was denied.
- Lynch filed this action alleging retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the Foundation Defendants and Town Defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f); motion treated as one.
- Court denied dismissal, granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike, striking paragraphs 54, 97, 98, and 99.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint fails Rule 8/10 pleading standards | Lynch's complaint provides notice and detail related to protected speech and retaliation. | Complaint is overly long, rambling, and merges claims; not concise. | Court declined to dismiss under Rule 8/10. |
| Whether sections of the complaint should be struck under Rule 12(f) | Allegations provide necessary context and public-issue background for First Amendment claims. | Many paragraphs are irrelevant, impertinent, or prejudicial. | Court granted in part; struck paragraphs 54, 97, 98, and 99. |
| Whether allegations about Shelter policies and background are relevant or prejudicial | Policies/background are directly tied to speech and retaliation claims. | Excessive detail about policies inflames the reader and is prejudicial. | Allegations are potentially relevant and not to be wholly stricken. |
| Whether allegations about Allen, Schotland, Bambrick’s misconduct are admissible | Acts as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory animus and state action. | Some allegations concern non-party misconduct and should be limited. | Partial allowance; Best Friends paragraphs struck; other non-party allegations may remain admissible. |
| Whether excerpts from the Shelter Operating Agreement are improper | Excerpts show the Town/Foundation relationship relevant to control over personnel decisions. | Excerpts are misleading and prejudicial. | Court denied strike of excerpts; they remain part of the pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988) (pleading purpose and fair notice; role of Rule 8 and 10)
- Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1995) (dismissal for overly rambling pleadings; standard for striking)
- White Plains Towing Corp. v. Patterson, 991 F.2d 1049 (2d Cir. 1993) (public concern analysis and speech/petition considerations)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (causal connection and retaliatory evidence in retaliation claims)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 131 S. Ct. 2488 (Supreme Court 2011) (public concern and petition clause analysis applied to government retaliation)