Renato Pistolesi, Alltow, Inc. v. Calabrese
666 F. App'x 55
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Renato Pistolesi, Alltow, Inc., and Action Automotive challenged the Village of Wappingers Falls and officials after Alltow/Action were removed from the Village’s tow list, asserting First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection claims and seeking reinstatement.
- District court excluded three documentary exhibits and testimony of a former Village employee (John Fenton) as irrelevant; plaintiffs sought a new trial on their First Amendment retaliation claim.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants on Action’s "class-of-one" Equal Protection claim, concluding Action failed to identify a sufficiently similar comparator.
- District court refused to enjoin the Village to reinstate Action to the Tow List, reasoning reinstatement would be retroactive relief barred by Ex parte Young/Edelman.
- The Second Circuit reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and summary judgment de novo, affirming some rulings but vacating/remanding the injunction denial for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of documentary exhibits on retaliation claim | Exhibits show disparate treatment of Alltow vs other tow companies, implying retaliatory animus for Pistolesi’s speech | Exhibits concerned materially different complaints/transactions and thus were irrelevant or unduly time-consuming | Affirmed: exclusion not arbitrary; even if marginally relevant, Rule 403 supported exclusion |
| Exclusion of John Fenton testimony | Fenton would testify Calabrese called Pistolesi a “scumbag” and intended to run him out—shows animus linked to speech | Defendants noted Calabrese’s animus was attributed to alleged illegal conduct/zoning violations, not protected speech | Affirmed: testimony unreliable as showing causation for removal; district court reasonably excluded it |
| Class-of-one Equal Protection claim (Action) | Action says it was treated differently without rational basis when removed from tow list | Village says comparators not “prima facie identical”; Alltow’s common ownership by Pistolesi distinguishes Action from remaining company | Affirmed: Action failed to identify sufficiently similar comparator; summary judgment proper |
| Request to enjoin reinstatement to Tow List | Reinstatement is prospective relief to prevent ongoing constitutional violation; district court should enjoin | District court treated reinstatement as impermissibly retroactive under Ex parte Young/Edelman | Vacated and remanded: reinstatement is prospective relief (Dwyer); district court must reconsider injunction request |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (deferential review of district court evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard requires arbitrary or irrational ruling)
- Ruston v. Town Bd. for Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir.) (class-of-one Equal Protection framework)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S.) (establishing class-of-one theory)
- Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.) (degree of similarity required for comparators)
- Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825 (2d Cir.) (reinstatement to government position constitutes prospective relief)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S.) (limits on retroactive relief against state officials)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S.) (permitting prospective injunctive relief against state officers)
- Neilson v. D’Angelis, 409 F.3d 100 (2d Cir.) ("prima facie identical" comparator requirement for class-of-one claims)