935 F. Supp. 2d 628
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Peterson, proceeding pro se, sues under §1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution stemming from a 2007 arrest.
- Peterson I (Peterson v. Mejia, 10 Civ. 1691) settled in 2011 with a general release stating claims that could have been brought there.
- The release in Peterson I used language that defendants argued barred the instant claims.
- Peterson signed a June 30, 2011 General Release; settlement terms tied the scope to claims that could have been brought in Peterson I.
- Judge Gorenstein adopted the Report, granting summary judgment on malicious prosecution but denying it as to false arrest/imprisonment; release did not bar the instant case.
- Extrinsic evidence showed parties continued to litigate this case after the purported settlement, undermining a barring effect of the Peterson I release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Peterson I release bar Peterson's instant claims? | Peterson asserts release intends broad bar to related claims. | Release covers claims could have been brought in Peterson I. | Release does not bar the instant claims. |
| Whether the release language is unambiguous or ambiguous regarding bar to this case. | Language unambiguously bars related claims. | Language ambiguous, could be interpreted to bar only claims in Peterson I. | Release language not unambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows no bar. |
| If the release is ambiguous, can extrinsic evidence show intent not to bar this case? | Extrinsic evidence supports bar to this case. | Extrinsic evidence does not demonstrate intent to bar this claim. | Extrinsic evidence supports no bar; this case not barred. |
| Propriety of the malicious prosecution claim given probable cause and grand jury indictment. | Indictment may have been procured by bad faith; lack of evidence to support probable cause. | Indictment presumes probable cause; defendant enjoys qualified immunity for grand jury testimony. | Malicious prosecution claim dismissed; there was probable cause and grand jury immunity applies. |
| Are Peterson's false arrest and false imprisonment claims still viable given the above? | Claims should proceed to trial. | Grants on malicious prosecution do not negate other claims; should proceed. | False arrest and false imprisonment claims remain for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tromp v. City of New York, 465 Fed.Appx. 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (unpublished; rejected as precedential; release language misapplied)
- Lucio v. Curran, 2 N.Y.2d 157 (1956) (true general release language; broad bar)
- A.A. Truck Renting Corp. v. Navistar, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 674 (2d Dep’t 2011) (release interpretation principles cited to interpret language)
- Lambert v. Sklar, 61 A.D.3d 939 (2d Dep’t 2009) (purpose and scope of general releases)
- Rehberg v. Pauli, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (grand jury immunity for officers)