Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Department

ZALASKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, Lisa Animals, Inc., Plaintiff,

Friends of

CITY OF DE- BRIDGEPORT POLICE Deputy

PARTMENT and Chief James Honis, Defendants-Appellees.

A.

Docket No. 08-3671-cv.

United of Appeals, States Court

Second Circuit.

Argued: June 2009. July

Decided: LLP, Oatis, Novick,

Derek Lobo & V. CT, Manchester, Plaintiff-Appellant. Edwards, Betsy City A. Office (John Mitola, brief), Attorney R. on the CT, Bridgeport, Defendants-Appellees. McLAUGHLIN, Before: POOLER and WESLEY, Judges. Circuit PER CURIAM: presents This a conflict case between individual’s assertion her First Amend- right engage public protest ment responsibility the official to maintain safety emphasize and order. We at the position that we take no in this outset as to the merits of the First opinion claim at here. be- Amendment issue We however, lieve, spartan analysis that the district court falls short conducted ju- required by First Amendment risprudence. We therefore conclude that the case should be remanded the district inqui- so comprehensive that more might ry be conducted.

FACTS in this action filed on complaint 27, 2006, in the United States October District the District Connecti- Connecticut, Zalaski, cut. Lisa a citizen of Bridge- names as defendants (“the Department City”) and port Police Police, Honis.1 Deputy its Chief of James Animals, Inc., unspec- co-plaintiff, on some 1. Zalaski's Friends of withdrew from case partic- alleges Zalaski’s claims arise from her the month. She ipation protests support “intended, of animal group through use of oral Arena rights taking outside communication, signs plac- leafleting, (“the 10,000-seat Arena”), Harbor a Yard ards, ... to express opposition” their to performance typically venue which hosts animals, in- removal of “non-human and year. between 130 150 events a The wild, cluding elephants, denying from the by City Bridgeport Arena is owned of them the to in ability engage normal ac- by private and managed enterprise a interactions, and confining tivities social “Centerplate.” called Centerplate man- them and in maintaining captivity, them ages pursuant the Arena to the terms of all for the purpose providing ‘enter- ” operating agreement, copy a which tainment.’ in appeal. not contained the record on this 25, 2006, On October Zalaski other and The protest demonstrations at issue took Plaza, demonstrators arrived at the situat- in an area in front of the Arena ing themselves about 30-40 feet from the Plaza,” known as “the which the defen- to alleges, entrances the Arena. Zalaski semi-circular, large, dants describe as “a however, that the demonstrators were con- paved through patrons area” must by City police fronted Honis and other walk in to order reach the Arena’s en- “physically officers and pushed to an area trances and attend performances held in- approximately 100 feet from the entrance alleges, side. Zalaski and the defendants distance, to the Arena.” At this it is al- not dispute, do that since the Arena was leged, the group engage patrons “could not in opened, protests annual in support conversation, in normal distribute litera- of animal have been held ture, signs Shortly have their read.” [or] Plaza during appearance at the Arena thereafter, individuals, “a number of all Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bai- standing approximately 100 feet from the (“the Circus”). ley Specifically, Circus Za- entrance to the Arena in a location verbal- protests laski states that “sought these to ly designated officers, police various engage patrons of performances these According were arrested.” to an official civil discussion order to dissuade them police report, nine individuals were arrest- from further support attendance and charged ed and with breach of peace, performances these until the use and con- interfering police officers, with criminal finement of non-human animals the Cir- trespass, inciting and to riot. It appears cus ceased.” from the charges record these were Zalaski, Prior according to by guilty pleas resolved imposition and the protestors animal rights applied for and upon fine, plus each demonstrator of a $35 permits received City from the to dem- affidavit, costs. According her Zalaski during onstrate the Plaza per- Circus she, herself was not arrested because formances, and none of these demonstra- along demonstrators, with pur- two other “arrest, infractions, tions resulted in chased ticket to see the Circus and was imposition criminal or ac- charges thereafter allowed demonstrate “within 10, 2006, tivities.” On October Zalaski five feet the ... front [the Arena] part of a group demonstrators approximately an hour.” successfully applied who above, permit to hold a demonstration at the As noted the complaint was filed performances Circus’s days scheduled later two after the October 2006 dem- prior summary ified date judgment. the district court’s been claims since has not devoted to as- complaint The asserts onstration. sembly to the United indi- under the First Amendment debate. evidence § via 42 Constitution U.S.C. primarily by States cates that used injunctive relief, declaratory seeks purpose patrons of the arena for the damages.2 compensatory well On as facility entering exiting the before filed, day complaint was after hold- performances after inside. In other Judge District Janet C. ing hearing, U.S. words, ordinarily people would not visit restraining granted a or- temporary Hall they intended to plaza unless enter der, the terms of which are not precise performance to view a inside. arena See Friends clear from the record. consequently of is not a plaza public The Animals, City Bridgeport Inc. v. Police of forum. al, 3:06-cv-1708, et No. Dep’t WL quotation *2 and Id. at citation (D.Conn. 2007). 201245, Jan.23, *2 at omitted). later, Judge Hall denied the Three months Bryant Judge arguendo assumed that complaint to the City’s motion dismiss forum,” the was a Plaza “limited i.e., necessary party, name failure to “[sjince opened because the arena in private firm man- Centerplate, the which city management the and arena have al- the Arena. Id. at *4. ages plaintiffs the to demonstrate the lowed on perform- anticipation of the Circus’s added, however, plaza.” Id. that she She 2007, Zala- ances at the Arena in October of final determination whether “reserve[d] temporary of sought a renewal ski that permissive plaza use of the renders it This restraining order. renewal de- forum,” until the filing a limited of Judge L. by District Vanessa nied U.S. dispositive Judge Bryant motions. Id. case trans- Bryant, to had been whom proceeded to that hold “the 80-foot restric- Bryant specifically Judge ferred. consid- permissible upon tion” was a restriction following “request” by City: ered activity: First Amendment plaintiffs’ time, the defendants have present “At The restriction is content neutral be- that the demonstrate requested plaintiffs applies all cause it demonstrators no than feet from closer subject regardless circus matter two main entrances the arena.” Animals, viewpoint. serves a City Bridge- Friends Inc. and restriction interest, al, government namely, port Dep’t significant et WL Police * 2007). (D.Conn. Oct.25, movement, Judge security orderly crowd holding narrowly the Plaza Bryant by continued the restriction is tailored forum,” which was not a “traditional it to serve interest because does scrutiny level of require highest substantially speech would than burden more any restriction of First necessary.... is defendants’ ex- [T]he taking therein: activity place Amendment portion which a DVD of a hibit is im- the demonstration includes presented of the evidence On the basis standing ages of more by the finds that the demonstrators parties, the Court arena, away feet from the only than 80 plaza, which been existence of the statutory is means the Constitution and laws” United 2. Section 1983 § is plaintiffs may U.S.C. 1983. There no dis- seek relief for violations States. alleged deprivation rights. pute this that the Specifically, their case constitutional bring upon Amendment meets the allows an individual suit Zalaski’s First statute requirement having statutory “depriv[ed] of taken a claim that she has been rights, privileges, secured "under color of” state law. or immunities mary could still seen judgment. those demonstrators be The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. by patrons heading heard consequently con- arena. The appeal The instant followed. 80-foot leaves cludes restriction ample alternative channel of commu- ANALYSIS plaintiffs. nication available summary judg “We review * 3. Id. at City of Waterbury, ment de novo.” Roe v. (2d Cir.2008). 31, 35 Summary order, In a brief June dated judgment properly granted when there Bryant Judge granted the mo- defendants’ genuine issue of material fact one summary judgment. tion for The order party judgment is entitled to a matter as reads, full, follows: 56(c). law. ambigui Fed.R.Civ.P. All granting ORDER defendants’ Motion must in favor ties be resolved of the non- Summary Judgment against only moving party permissible and all infer ], remaining defendant Zalaski. The [sic ences from the factual record must be previously an opinion, Court issued in party’s drawn in that favor. Anderson v. Inc., 242, 255, it in plaza Liberty Lobby, which determined that 477 U.S. 106 (1986). forum, 91 public S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 202 front the arena is not The moving party bears the burden estab presented and Zalaski has not fur- any lishing any genuine the absence of issue of ther suggesting evidence the plaza Catrett, Corp. material fact. v. Celotex 477 public could be a forum. Consistent 317, 322, U.S. 91 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d previously opinion], [its with issued (1986). purposes Court assumes for the present motion that the limit- plaza is a novo, though Even our review is de ed forum public city because the and the are free to ground appar- we decide on management arena have allowed Zalaski record, from past ent we have in the to demonstrate there. The 80-foot re- remanded for further consideration be- previously approved by striction cause the “district court’s decision ... is neutral, is sig- Court content serves the simply spare too as a serve basis our security nificant interest of Portuondo, review.” 234 F.3d Beckford movement, orderly crowd and does (2d Cir.2000). As explained we in not burden substantially speech more Beckford: necessary. than is Court The does not observed, Athough repeatedly we have greater need determine whether a substance, in words “we review a satisfy restriction would also the applica- summary judgment de novo test. complaint ble from arises applying the same standard as the dis- in in demonstrations October court,” trict that it does mean 2006, and Zalaski in her states affidavit our function to decide motions sum- purchased that she a circus ticket mary in the judgment first instance. demonstrated closer to the than arena dependent We are on district court approximately 80 feet for one Ac- hour. identify and sort out the issues on cordingly, genuine there issue of motions, analyze such to examine and fact as to material whether Zalaski’s them, apply and to the law to the facts violated, rights First Amendment were accepted by for purposes the court and the defendants are entitled to sum- motion. speech im property and the restrictions and citation omit- quotation

Id. ted). Here, Beckford, we find the Rest. posed Employees as thereon.” & Union, too “simply are efforts 100 v. Employees court’s Local district Rec., our as a basis for review.” to serve spare York 311 F.3d Dep’t New Parks & (2d Cir.2002). Id. 534, 544 presents a conflict be This case the initial task a court Accordingly, First Amendment tween individual’s dispute regarding faced with a First protest and a engage right activity government prop- Amendment to main government’s responsibility local erty property is to the nature of define As safety general tain order. task, the Supreme at issue. To aid this matter, First importance “the for expres- “fora defined various de guarantees to individual Amendment that, ... fall correspondingly, along sion system represen to our velopment and protection,” spectrum of constitutional justifiable “that government” tative means highest from to lowest. Peck v. Baldwins- may not be achieved governmental goals (2d Disk, ville Cent. Sch. unduly having an unneces broad means Cir.2005). guaranteed sary impact” upon Branzburg v. Amendment. by the First fora, In traditional such 680-81, 92 Hayes, 408 U.S. S.Ct. have parks, streets and “immemori (1972). time, At the same L.Ed.2d 626 ally been for the of the held trust use not guarantee “the First Amendment does mind, and, public, time out have been of at all right communicate one’s views the to assembly, for of purposes used communi that any or in manner places times and citizens, cating thoughts and dis between Soc’y may be desired.” Int’l Heffron for cussing public government questions,” the Consciousness, Inc., 640, 452 Krishna U.S. can enact content-based restrictions on 2559, (1981). L.Ed.2d 101 69 298 S.Ct. they necessary speech only if to are serve city It “clear” that a a valid has compelling government Perry a interest. “safety con protecting interest in Perry Ass’n v. Educ. Local Educators’ patrons of events large venience” of Ass’n, 37, 45, 460 103 S.Ct. 74 U.S. Soc’y public property. held on Krish for (internal (1983) quotation L.Ed.2d 794 Consciousness, at U.S. na marks). time, place Content neutral in the “Nothing S.Ct. 2559. Constitution narrowly manner tai regulations must be freely requires the Government to significant government lored to serve a to who to their access all wish exercise interest, open must alter “ample leave every type right speech to free of Gov native Id. channels communication.” regard without property ernment scrutiny to apply We the same restric- property disruption nature or to in a category public proper- tions second might by speaker’s be caused ty, public the designated forum. Corneli- Legal activities.” Cornelius v. NAACP us, A Fund, 473 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. 3439. 473 U.S. 799- & Educ. Defense (1985). designated public forum exists when the 800, 105 87 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. “intentionally” is, Government acts to create permitted to That “the space. Id. remains so even such This public’s exercise control over the use though forum is not one has been property expressive government-owned assembly traditionally open public degree per and the of control purposes, upon the of the debate. depends mitted nature public

A limited Ultimately, forum is created forum in analysis turns ev- ery study when “the ease government opens non-public upon careful of the prop- erty factors, forum limits expressive activity question light but these speakers certain kinds the discus we are therefore troubled that subjects.” sion of certain district did Employ consider ees, quotation leading precedents analysis on forum omitted). forum, In public involving performance marks a limited cases venues. scrutiny Paulsen, expressive strict does not apply example, we considered re- general purpose activities outside the strictions upon distribution of leaflets Coliseum, which government opened outside forum. of Nassau “an enclosed Id. at elliptical 18,- 545-46. Restrictions on capacity activities structure with a seats, outside purpose the established of the [which] fo is surrounded a net- only sidewalks, rum need be reasonable and work of pedestrian view thorough- point neutral. Id. at fares and numerous lots parking which can accommodate several thousand automo- Finally, nonpublic forum, in a biles.” 925 F.2d at 67. been opened, has not tradition or We held Paulsen that the property designation, to for communica constituted a traditional forum be- tion, speech may be through any excluded cause compound “the can Coliseum com- restrictions, “reasonable” content-based fortably variety accommodate a wide long as these limitations not “suppress do expressive activities at the same time” and expression merely because officials “frequently the site of boisterous re- oppose the speaker’s Perry views.” Educ. activity.” creational Id. at 70. We further Ass’n, 46, 103 460 U.S. S.Ct. 948. observed many “[i]n cities and subur- ..., ban municipal environs stadium In conducting analysis, forum replaced meeting town hall and the factors, we variety examine a including public square as gathering place physical “the forum’s characteristics and large segments of population the to engage use, the context of the property’s including in meaningful discourse.” at 71. Id. its location purpose.” and Hotel Employ ees, at 311 F.3d 547. We have held that Application public of analysis forum “primary the factor in determining yielded wheth a different result in Hotel Employ- ees, er property owned or controlled the which we considered whether ex- a public is is pressive activity forum how the in the at Plaza New York (citation omitted). locale is used.” Id. City’s Lincoln Center could be limited “to Also is government’s relevant the intent in events an having performance- artistic or space the constructing its and need for related component, in a resulting prohibi- controlling expressive activities on rallies, the tion on political demonstrations, property, policies as evidenced its leafletting.” and F.3d 539. We regulations. See Paulsen v. County question answered affirmative, this in the Nassau, (2d Cir.1991). F.2d holding that the Plaza a limited public was Finally, we consider whether the property forum because in constructing Lincoln in question part “is itself, of a class of property Center New City York “establish[ed] history which by or tradition has been a cultural center perform- devoted to the open expressive arts,” and used for activity.” ing had thereby “evidenced Employees, 311 F.3d at 547 intent to conserve the Plaza’s function as omitted). quotation marks an extension of the performing arts com- summary judgment device of not upon limitation drastic at 551. The plex.” Id. Schering precipitously imposed.” Corp. that take activities could expressive type (2d Cir.1983) Co., Ins. we conclud- Home proper, in the Plaza was (citations omitted). serve as forec- ed, “plazas that because complexes are not arts performing ourts that tradi- spaces have types public CONCLUSION to expressive dedicated tionally been judgment district court is uses.” Id. and this matter is REMAND- VACATED four Employees, we identified In Hotel proceedings ED to that for further tradi- to the existence of a factors relevant opinion. this consistent with 1) [prop- forum: “whether the tional prop- erty] categories within those falls WESLEY, Judge, dissenting: Circuit historically deemed to be traditional

erty object majority’s I do charac- 2) fora,” type it is the “whether factual background terization that given so classified property that should be dispute, I gave rise this nor do take [3) characteristics, objec- physical ] its majority’s with the characterization issue [4)] ways used, City’s tive it is addressing precedent of this Court’s constructing opening it to intent because, analysis. I my forum dissent F.3d 536-37. Distin- public.” 311 view, summary judgment Paulsen, that “the guishing we observed proper was defendants remand from the Plaza is far different ‘boisterous’ necessary. Instead, grounds of Nassau Coliseum.... created a fountain that has Although agree majority I with the a prominent centerpiece serves as analysis spare, Op. the district court’s sought and it performing complex, arts 337, I serves disagree this singularly the Plaza as an area preserve vacating judgment of that basis to Lincoln Center events dedicated notes, court. As this Court often and as performances.” at 555- other artistic Id. majority acknowledges, Op. see at 340- “ [cjourt’s may ‘we affirm [district summary judgment order considerations, light of these adequate support in the ground finds about forum we have serious concerns ” Corp. Group, record.’ v. Savin Savin by the analysis apparently conducted (2d Cir.2004) 439, (quoting F.3d 450 391 the Especially light of district court. Eichelberg Passenger Corp., v. Nat’l R.R. we appeal, before us on this sparse record (2d Cir.1995)). 1179, n. F.3d 1186 6 57 attempt analysis will not conduct this Instead, The in this case is closed and we remand to the dis record ourselves. nothing a com there will be new for district trict court which should undertake analysis on remand.1 What the forum “so the court consider prehensive public 56(f), discovery, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. The court noted that between seek further district denying plaintiff’s argue improperly an re- or that the district court time it order issued restraining precluded submitting quest temporary her from additional evi- a order for course, "moving party preliminary injunction, Of while the a and the issuance dence. demonstrating granting summary judgment to burden of of its bears initial order fact,” defendants, present[] any genuine absence a issue of material "Zalaski [did] burden, party plaza moving that suggesting that when meets further evidence nonmoving plaintiff party "must come forward with public forum.” Nor did could be a majority the district to do is to injury asks conclude there was no provide explanation plaintiffs rights. a more detailed of its First Amendment However, charged this is decision. majority cites v. Portuon- Beckford conducting with de novo review of the (2d Cir.2000) do, F.3d for the legal presented question by appeal. this propositions that district court’s “[t]he de- And, this presents impor because case ... simply spare cision too to serve as a Amendment, question tant under the First for our basis review” and “that it is [not] indepen we are obligated conduct “an our function to decide motions for sum- searching dent inquiry of the entire mary judgment in the first instance.” Id. record,” Manneau, ex rel. Guiles Guiles v. But that distinguishable. case is (2d 320, Cir.2006), 461 F.Sd in order to Here, the district specific court made ref- satisfy ourselves that of sum previous erence its denying decision mary judgment proper. See Fed. plaintiffs temporary motion for a restrain- 56(c)(2). R.Civ.P. ing injunction. and for a preliminary order See Op. previous opin- 339-40. There dearth of is no law in our Circuit ion, the district court the prop- described setting out the factors that inform should erty challenged at issue and the restriction district analysis. court’s forum plaintiffs speech, applied prin- E.g., v. Bronx Household Faith Bd. ciples of the public forum doctrine to the (2d Cir.2007) Educ., 89, (Cala 492 F.3d dispute. facts of this See Friends Ani- bresi, concurring); Sussman v. Craw mals, City Bridgeport Inc. v. Police (2d Cir.2007) 136, ford, (per 488 F.3d Dep’t, 01708(VLB), No. 06 Civ. 2007 WL curiam); Corsones, Huminski 396 F.3d (D.Conn. 2007). Oct.25, at *1-3 (2d Cir.2005); 89-92 Peck ex rel. Peck summary In its order granting judgment, Dist., v. Baldwinsville Cent. Sch. 426 F.3d previous the district court adopted its fac- (2d Cir.2005); Emps. 625-27 & “[cjonsistent and, findings tual with [its Rest. Emps. Dep’t Union v. N.Y. previously issued opinion], the [c]ourt as- Recreation, Parks & 544-53 purposes of [deciding sume[d] (2d Cir.2002). view, In my nothing there is for summary motion judgment] to indicate that the district court was un limited forum.” Op. See of, misapplied, prece aware this line at 340. Indeed, although dent. majority char acterizes the district court’s order as In the district denying court’s decision “brief,” Op. at it states that temporary Zalaski’s motion for a restrain- “serious about analysis concerns the forum ing preliminary injunction, order and for a as apparently conducted the district referenced in granting summary its order court,” Op. at it judgment, identifies error the district court heeded the course, committed court below. Of instructions the majority provides now “any injury to First Amendment is a it on remand. For example, majority matter of profound concern to the courts.” notes that “the initial task a court faced Burke, (2d 470, Farrell v. 449 dispute F.3d 497 with a regarding First Amendment Cir.2006). But, because I activity conclude that property is to de- there in fact no error committed fine the nature of property at issue.” court, the district I necessarily Op. must also 341. In opinion at its addressing the specific Gir.2010) demonstrating (2d (internal quotation evidence existence 292 marks dispute genuine of a omitted). material fact.” Co., 288, F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. F.3d 607 up to set wooden sawhorses to Department restraining order temporary a motion for would line injunction, patrons the dis form “chutes” which preliminary for a that, considering through security and enter the up pass “[i]n court noted trict comports request the defendants’ be- placed whether arena. were also Sawhorses speech to free plaintiffs’ with the each chute in a tween the entrance of examines first assembly, [c]ourt arc, mirroring the front of semi-circular plain in which the of the forum the nature Only ticket-holding patrons— the arena. 2007 WL to demonstrate.” tiffs seek permitted including Zalaski herself —were 3124872, Perry Educ. Ass’n v. (citing at *1 Thus, geographi- lines. to enter these Ass’n, 37, 460 U.S. Local Educators’ Perry one; arbitrary cal restriction was not (1983)). Af 74 L.Ed.2d 103 S.Ct. security to legitimate rather it was related categories discussing the established ter at the arena. measures in See Hef- fora, court concluded the district Soc’y v. Int’l Krishna Conscious- fron [imposed by restriction “that the 80-foot ness, Inc., 640, 650-51, 101 S.Ct. 452 U.S. for a limited City] satisfies test (1981). As the Su- 69 L.Ed.2d 298 Id. at *3. public forum.” clear, precedent makes “we preme Court’s question not view the wheth- Court, simply [of] do plaintiff does In brief to this her boundary line could be er the misapplied [80]-foot argue that the district a of constitu- tighter question novo somewhat Upon “[con- law. de applicable Freeman, factors, ie., Burson v. tional dimension.” of the relevant sideration function, 191, 210, location, use, pur- S.Ct. 504 U.S. [p]laza’s (1992) City’s quotation intent marks together with L.Ed.2d pose, omitted). Therefore, Emps., any disagreement building space,” evaluating plaintiffs the barri- may I find Zalaski have as where applicable principles of the create a dis- light placed claims in does not cades were proper. forum was a limited fact. id. puted issue of material See from distinguishable further This case is The record reveals presented the scenario Beckford. be, primarily and is issue is intended were “troubled” we noted that we Beckford as, entry means of and exit used because it court’s order by the district And, pedestrian to a while close arena. ostensibly ground,” “alternate invoked an sidewalk, off from the side it is set defendants, which we by but advanced by landscaping, grass, private walk mem- identify in the defendants’ could not Thus, arena. patrons of the drive Here, at 129. law. 234 F.3d orandum of protestors challenged restriction on where my confidence such error undermines no viewpoint- may is “reasonable stand court’s or- propriety in the of the district the First and does not violate neutral” der. City v. Amendment. Pleasant Grove , determination The district court’s —U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. Summum material fact genuine issue of “there is no (2009). L.Ed.2d 853 Amendment Zalaski’s First as to whether because, view, my there is I dissent proper.2 violated” was rights were judgment of the vacating event, basis large required circus was of the when a de novo review district court Bridgeport Police personnel and arena not render Op. this omission does by the Although majority is "troubled” 2. "leading prec- court's failure to cite district court's order flawed. district Court, analysis” from this edents on forum summary record reveals that the view,

judgment proper. my there no evidence in the record that would

support a different result. See E.E.O.C. v. Inc., Transp.,

J.B. Hunt 73- (2d Cir.2003). Accordingly, for the rea- above, I

sons articulated would affirm the

judgment of the district court. BAKER, Creditor-Appellant,

Aston SIMPSON,

Charles Marx Windels Lane Mittendorf, LLP, Stanley Gallant,

& Capital LLC, Manage-

Galster Galster Corp.,

ment Allstate Insurance Com-

pany, JPMorgan Bank, N.A., Chase

Trustees-Appellees.

Docket No. 09-3848-bk. Appeals,

United States

Second Circuit.

Submitted: June 2010. July

Decided:

Case Details

Case Name: Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police Department

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Jul 27, 2010

Citation: 613 F.3d 336

Docket Number: Docket 08-3671-cv

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.