168 F. Supp. 3d 100
D.D.C.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Corey L. McFadden sued WMATA, Local 689 (the Union), several WMATA employees, and Dr. Leonard Hertzberg asserting federal disability claims and various state-law torts.
- The Court previously (Jan. 22, 2015) dismissed several state-law counts and individual defendants for insufficient pleading; the April 23, 2015 order amended one dismissal to without prejudice and denied reconsideration of two union officials’ dismissal.
- McFadden sought interlocutory appeal and asked the district court to stay proceedings pending that appeal; the D.C. Circuit declined to hear the interlocutory appeal.
- McFadden moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to replead defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), civil conspiracy, and other claims against WMATA employees and to rejoin Dr. Hertzberg.
- Defendants opposed, arguing futility, lack of jurisdiction over Hertzberg, WMATA-Compact immunity for individual employees, and that certain claims (e.g., a stand-alone "disability harassment" cause of action) are legally unavailable.
- The court denied the stay and interlocutory-appeal motions as moot, allowed limited amendments (reviving defamation, IIED, and conspiracy claims against WMATA individuals and defamation/IIED against Hertzberg), required jurisdictional discovery as to Hertzberg, rejected a standalone disability-harassment claim, and deferred judgment on the pleadings against Hertzberg as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Dr. Hertzberg | McFadden alleges Hertzberg’s IME work and statements tie him to D.C.; seeks to rejoin Hertzberg and invoke supplemental jurisdiction for state claims | Hertzberg attests to no D.C. contacts and argues lack of personal jurisdiction | Court finds conflicting evidence (website screenshot) warrants jurisdictional discovery before ruling; denies immediate judgment and permits discovery |
| Futility of proposed amendments (claims against Hertzberg) | Amendments plead defamation and IIED and invoke supplemental jurisdiction under §1367 | Hertzberg contends amendments fail to state claims and jurisdiction is lacking | Court finds defamation and IIED adequately pleaded at this stage; supplemental jurisdiction may be proper; leave to amend permitted (subject to jurisdictional discovery) |
| WMATA-Compact immunity for individual WMATA employees | McFadden repleads with specificity as to defamatory statements and hostile-work-environment conduct | WMATA/employees claim Compact immunity and argue damages demand is baseless | Court permits amendments restoring defamation, IIED, and conspiracy claims against individual WMATA defendants, rejecting immunity defense at pleading stage for lack of developed showing; $10,000,000 claim allowed to stand for now (punitive damages may not be available under ADA/Rehab Act but are for torts) |
| Stay & interlocutory-appeal requests and judgment on the pleadings | McFadden sought a stay pending interlocutory appeal and moved for judgment against Hertzberg | Defendants opposed stay and argued motions premature | D.C. Circuit declined interlocutory review; district court denied stay and interlocutory-appeal motion as moot and held judgment on the pleadings against Hertzberg premature pending jurisdictional discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are to be construed liberally)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend pleadings should be freely given absent undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, repeated failures, or futility)
- Jankovic v. Int’l Crisis Grp., 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (defamatory statement standard—injury to reputation or professional standing)
- Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (opinion is not categorically immune from defamation liability when it implies provably false facts)
- Beebe v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 129 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (WMATA Compact grants WMATA liability and shields employees for torts committed in course of proprietary/ministerial functions)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (punitive damages are not recoverable in private suits under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act)