837 F. Supp. 2d 131
E.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Frank and Maria Vlahadamis own Hampton Bays Diner in Southampton, NY, and Frank previously operated another diner at the same location since 1983.
- Plaintiffs allege authorities began targeting the Diner after it hosted a Hispanic-night with a DJ, aiming to deter Hispanic patrons and jeopardize the liquor license.
- Defendants, Town of Southampton and Town officials, allegedly intensified inspections, undercover drug probes, and referrals to the State Liquor Authority (SLA) after Hispanic-night operations began.
- SLA referrals and subsequent hearings resulted in some findings that the Diner’s activities were not sustained as disorderly, but referrals to SLA continued and affected licensure considerations.
- Plaintiffs seek relief under § 1983/1985 for equal protection, due process, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy; defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, some granted and others denied.
- The court subsequently granted summary judgment on most claims but allowed selective-enforcement Equal Protection claims regarding the SLA referral and conspiracy claims to proceed against Frano, Kiernan, the Town, and the Southampton Police.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Equal Protection claim survived as class-of-one and selective enforcement. | Vlahadamis argues they were treated differently from similar restaurants. | Defendants contend comparators were not similarly situated and actions were discretionary. | Class-of-one claims rejected; selective-enforcement claim survives only regarding SLA referral to the SLA against Frano, Kiernan, the Town, and Police. |
| Whether the drug investigations and referrals violated Equal Protection. | Plaintiffs claim disparate treatment in drug investigations compared to similar establishments. | Defendants show similar investigations occurred at other venues; no discriminatory intent shown. | Equal Protection claims related to drug investigations and referrals dismissed. |
| Whether there was personal involvement by defendants and Monell liability. | Plaintiffs contend Frano and Kiernan acted with final authority; municipal liability implicated. | Evidence insufficient to show widespread custom or policy; supervisory liability limited. | Personal involvement issues unresolved for some defendants; Monell liability remains to extent of surviving Equal Protection theories. |
| Whether due process rights were violated through procedural/substantive process. | Diner owners claim rights to operate without racial discrimination were denied. | No cognizable liberty/property interest shown as they did not cease operation entirely. | Due process claims granted in part: substantive procedural claims dismissed; no revived liberty interest established. |
| Whether the conspiracy claim under §1985 survives given intracorporate conspiracy. | Town officials and SLA investigators allegedly conspired against plaintiffs. | Intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars claims among Town defendants; potential liability limited to Kiernan. | Conspiracy claim allowed against Kiernan only; dismissed as to other defendants; intracorporate doctrine applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olson, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one Equal Protection; need rational basis and unusual treatment)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits class-of-one; discretionary state action considerations)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1995) (tacit understandings in conspiracy/intent)
- LaTrieste Restaurant & Cabaret v. Village of Port Chester, 40 F.3d 587 (2d Cir. 1994) (selective enforcement framework for equal protection)
- Dunlop v. City of New York, No. 06 Civ. 0433, 2008 WL 1970002 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applicability)
- Monell v. N.Y. City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom or failure to train)