Schubert v. City of Rye, 775 F. Supp. 2d 689

Background

Schuberts allege §1983 violations against City of Rye, City Council and individual council members, Mottarella (city engineer), Otis (mayor), and Shew (city manager) for First and Fourteenth Amendment harms and one intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Shew.
Wetland/Gates work on Gates property allegedly removed drainage from a watercourse that fed the Schubert Wetland Project.
City Engineer initially determined Gates work did not require a permit due to vacation of the City Naturalist; Plaintiffs allege this was improper and motivated by a confidential relationship between Mottarella and Gates’ engineer.
Plaintiffs complained to City Council; they allege subsequent retaliatory actions included hiring a hydrologist and taking other steps to cover up the initial decision.
Plaintiffs’ 2009-2010 Amended Complaint forms the basis for the federal claims; Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Court grants motions, dismissing all federal claims with prejudice and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants have immunity defenses defeat the §1983 claims	Plaintiffs rely on constitutional rights harmed by actions of Rye officials.	Defendants contend absolute or qualified immunity applies and officials acted within discretion.	Yes; official-capacity claims dismissed; absolute/qualified immunity defenses apply to individual defendants.
Whether Plaintiffs have a protectable property interest to ground due process claims	Plaintiffs claim a protectable interest in enforcement of wetland permits against Gates.	Defendants argue no such entitlement exists; enforcement discretion lies with officials.	No; no cognizable property interest established; substantive and procedural due process claims fail.
Whether the First Amendment retaliation claims survive	Plaintiffs allege retaliation for exercising free speech by city officials.	Defendants argue lack of causation and insufficient showing of chill or retaliatory motive.	Dismissed; no showing that actions were substantially caused by protected speech or that speech was chilled.
Whether the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim remains	Shew’s CPEP contact constitutes extreme conduct.	Federal claims preclude state-law IED claim under supplemental jurisdiction.	Dismissed without prejudice to refile in state court.
Whether the City should be held liable under Monell for alleged policy	Alleged City policy caused constitutional injuries.	Actions by policy-makers may create Monell liability; Mottarella/Shew lack final policymaker status.	Court dismisses Monell-based claims against Mottarella/Shew; no final policymaker liability shown.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)) (pleading standard—claims must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 ( (2009)) (article pleading must state a plausible claim)
Gagliardi v. Village of Pawling, 18 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 1994) (no due process right to enforce zoning against neighbor; discretionary enforcement)
Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom)
Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (absolute immunity for local legislators)
Rowland v. State Employees Bargaining Agent Coal., 494 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2007) (test for whether acts are legislative—form and substance)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (due process limits on state action; not a duty to act)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion; no due process entitlement to enforcement)
Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) (judicial notice in 12(b)(6) context)