Case: Centro de la Comunidad Hispana v. Town of Oyster Bay

2:10-cv-02262 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: May 18, 2010

Closed Date: Nov. 25, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 18, 2010, two organizations comprised of day laborers and/or predominately Latino immigrant workers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town of Oyster Bay. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, claiming that the defendants, through the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the …

On May 18, 2010, two organizations comprised of day laborers and/or predominately Latino immigrant workers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the First and Fourteenth Amendments against the Town of Oyster Bay. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, claiming that the defendants, through the passage of an ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of labor from the town's streets and sidewalks, unlawfully prohibited speech related to employment and had a discriminatory animus against predominately Latino immigrant day laborers.

In September 2009, the Town Board enacted the ordinance in question. It prohibited any person from standing on a street corner stopping or attempting to stop a passing car for employment-related purposes. It also prohibited drivers from stopping their cars for the same purposes. The proposed purpose of the ordinance was to promote the health, safety, and welfare of motorists and pedestrians on the streets of the town. However, the supervisor referenced the ordinance as a temporary solution to dealing with those who were not on the path to citizenship. Comments from the public showed that town residents feared groups of men unfamiliar to them standing on the streets. There was also proof of animosity towards immigrant day laborers, such as town residents saying the day laborers were unsightly, illegal, and not wanted in that town.

Plaintiffs argued that since New York laws already addressed health and safety concerns on the streets, this animus against predominantly Latino immigrant day laborers was what actually motivated the passing of the ordinance and that this violated the First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of the ordinance, day laborers had suffered a significant loss of wages and harassment from police officers and people driving by them.

Two days after the complaint was filed, on May 20, 2010, the District Court (Judge Denis Reagan Hurley) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the town from enforcing the ordinance at issue. Then, on June 1, 2010, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance at issue, pending final resolution of the First Amendment claims. In response to this order, the defendants filed a notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2010. The case was argued in the Second Circuit under the docket number 10-2505-cv. Little docket activity occurred until May 17, 2011, when the Second Circuit (Judges Barrington D. Parker, Gerard E. Lynch, and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.) affirmed the District Court's order converting the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings.

After a few months of discovery, on September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The parties continued through the discovery process. On March 30, 2012, the District Court (Magistrate Judge Arlene Rosario Lindsay) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order to withhold from discovery certain privileged documents: The identification documents and/or immigration status of the individual day laborers known to the plaintiffs. The parties then continued to go through more discovery litigation.

On June 18, 2013, the District Court (Judge Hurley) affirmed Magistrate Judge Lindsay's protective order, allowing plaintiffs to withhold privileged documents in the discovery process. Additionally, the District Court rejected the defendants' arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing in this case, dismissing the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. 954 F.Supp.2d 127.

On December 1, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to permanently prevent the ordinance from ever taking effect, as it was unconstitutional. In the almost two-year interim, a similar court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert was decided by the Supreme Court on June 18, 2015, which provided a rationale to dismiss this case as unconstitutional under the First Amendment and permanently enjoin the ordinance. On September 3, 2015, the District Court (Judge Hurley) cited this case as part of its rationale and issued a judgment that enjoined the ordinance permanently and declared the ordinance unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because the District Court found that the ordinance did not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, it did not address the plaintiffs' due process or Equal Protection claims in its judgment. 128 F.Supp.3d 597.

On September 15, 2015, the defendants appealed the District Court's decision to enjoin the ordinance. The appeal continued in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals under the docket number 15-2914-cv. During this appeal, the defendants also argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring this case. On August 22, 2017, the Second Circuit (Judges Dennis Jacobs, Barrington D. Parker, and Jane A. Restani) affirmed the District Court's ruling enjoining the ordinance. The Second Circuit found that the District Court did not err in finding the ordinance unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that the plaintiffs indeed had standing to bring suit against the defendants.868 F.3d 104.

In the fall of 2018, the final stages of litigation began to determine how much defendants would pay to plaintiffs in attorney's fees and costs. In July of 2019, the Court ordered that defendants pay $1,505,806 to the plaintiffs' attorneys. On November 25th of that year, a satisfaction of the judgment was entered and the case was closed.

Summary Authors

Perry Miska (3/24/2014)

Caitlin Hatakeyama (10/19/2018)

Jack Hibbard (6/8/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5665155/parties/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-v-town-of-oyster-bay/


Judge(s)

Hurley, Denis Reagan (New York)

Lindsay, Arlene Rosario (New York)

Lohier, Raymond Joseph Jr. (New York)

Lynch, Gerard E. (New York)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anello, Farrin R (New York)

Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)

Fredrickson, Samantha (New York)

Gelernt, Lee (New York)

Harrist, Erin Beth (New York)

Judge(s)

Hurley, Denis Reagan (New York)

Lindsay, Arlene Rosario (New York)

Lohier, Raymond Joseph Jr. (New York)

Lynch, Gerard E. (New York)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Anello, Farrin R (New York)

Eisenberg, Arthur (New York)

Fredrickson, Samantha (New York)

Gelernt, Lee (New York)

Harrist, Erin Beth (New York)

Huizar, Laura (New York)

Iturralde, Christina (New York)

Joynes, Elizabeth (New York)

Levine, Alan (New York)

Pinon, Adriana (Texas)

Stoughton, Corey (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Hill, Timothy F. (New York)

Kendric, Christopher (New York)

Sinnreich, Jonathan Halsby (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:10-cv-02262

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

Docket
1

2:10-cv-02262

Complaint

May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

Complaint
10

2:10-cv-02262

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order

May 20, 2010

May 20, 2010

Order/Opinion
19

2:10-cv-02262

Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

June 1, 2010

June 1, 2010

Order/Opinion
33

2:10-cv-02262

0:10-02505

Summary Order [USCA Affirming District Court's Grant of a Preliminary Injunction]

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

420 Fed.Appx. 97

May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

Order/Opinion
40

2:10-cv-02262

Amended Complaint

Sept. 28, 2011

Sept. 28, 2011

Complaint
60

2:10-cv-02262

Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order]

March 30, 2012

March 30, 2012

Order/Opinion
94

2:10-cv-02262

Memorandum and Order [Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment]

954 F.Supp.2d 127

June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5665155/centro-de-la-comunidad-hispana-de-locust-valley-v-town-of-oyster-bay/

Last updated Aug. 4, 2022, 3:05 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
94

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 52 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 77 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; affirming 62 Judge Lindsay's order; denying 88 Motion for Pre Motion Conference; denying 91 Motion for Pre Motion Conference. This action is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Lindsay for all remaining pretrial supervision. This includes plaintiffs' motion to quash third party subpoenas which is currently pending. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 6/18/2013. (Kaley, Regina)

June 18, 2013

June 18, 2013

RECAP
138

ORDER granting 131 Motion for Summary Judgment: The aggressive solicitation of employment from occupants of motor vehicles, without question, raises valid concerns about the dangers that can arise therefrom. The Towns response to these concerns - the Ordinance - is not, however, a constitutionally permissive one. Like a number of the community members who spoke at the Towns March 31, 2009 and May 26, 2009 public hearing, the Court urges the parties to this case to seek a safe, constitutionally valid solution to address these concerns.Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 9/3/2015. (Gapinski, Michele)

Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

RECAP
160

NOTICE of Appearance by Karen Chana Rudnicki on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Rudnicki, Karen) (Entered: 08/31/2018)

Aug. 31, 2018

Aug. 31, 2018

PACER
161

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order) (Wells, Jordan) (Entered: 10/11/2018)

1 Affidavit in Support

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Oct. 11, 2018

Oct. 11, 2018

PACER
162

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Declaration) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Declaration

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Declaration

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
163

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
164

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
165

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
166

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
167

First MOTION for Attorney Fees by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
168

MEMORANDUM in Opposition by Defts Town of Oyster Bay filed by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
169

RESPONSE in Opposition re 166 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 162 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 164 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 163 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 165 First MOTION for Attorney Fees, 167 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Declaration) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

2 Declaration

View on PACER

3 Declaration

View on PACER

4 Declaration

View on PACER

Oct. 16, 2018

Oct. 16, 2018

PACER
170

First MOTION for Attorney Fees -- Supplement to Reply Papers by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Letter to Plaintiffs Reply) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 10/30/2018)

1 Supplement Letter to Plaintiffs Reply

View on PACER

Oct. 30, 2018

Oct. 30, 2018

PACER
171

REPLY in Support of Plaintiffs Reply regarding Attorneys Fees filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Letter) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

1 Supplement Letter

View on PACER

Nov. 5, 2018

Nov. 5, 2018

PACER
172

Letter to Magistrate Judge Anne Shields by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Chin, Jackson) (Entered: 06/12/2019)

1 Declaration

View on PACER

June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

PACER

Scheduling Order

June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

PACER
173

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 162 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by The Workplace Project, Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley: For the reasons contained in the attached Report and Recommendation, this Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs, appearing at Docket Entry 162, be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court recommends that Plaintiffs be awarded $1,482,248.00 in attorney's fees and $23,558.00 in costs, for a total monetary award of $1,505,806.00. Objections to R&R due by 7/2/2019. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 6/18/2019. (Minerva, Deanna) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

June 18, 2019

June 18, 2019

PACER
174

NOTICE of Appearance by Arthur Nelson Eisenberg on behalf of All Plaintiffs (aty to be noticed) (Eisenberg, Arthur) (Entered: 06/27/2019)

June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

PACER
175

Letter regarding Report and Recommendation by Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley, The Workplace Project (Eisenberg, Arthur) (Entered: 07/02/2019)

July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

PACER
176

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs are awarded $1,482,248.00 in attorney's fees and $23,558.00 in costs for a total monetary award of $1,505,806.00. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 7/3/2019. (Gapinski, Michele) (Entered: 07/03/2019)

July 3, 2019

July 3, 2019

RECAP
177

Judgment - Attorney Fees

July 8, 2019

July 8, 2019

PACER
178

Alter Judgment

Aug. 20, 2019

Aug. 20, 2019

PACER
179

Judgment - Attorney Fees

Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

PACER

Order on Motion to Alter Judgment

Aug. 21, 2019

Aug. 21, 2019

PACER
180

Order

Nov. 25, 2019

Nov. 25, 2019

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 18, 2010

Closing Date: Nov. 25, 2019

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are two organizations on behalf of immigrant workers and day laborers, who, because of the Town of Oyster Bay Ordinance, are prohibited from soliciting work on streets and sidewalks allegedly because of their race and national origin.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

ACLU Affiliates (any)

ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Town of Oyster Bay, City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: $1,505,806

Order Duration: 2015 - None

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Over/Unlawful Detention

Racial profiling

Transportation

Discrimination-basis:

Immigration status

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Criminal prosecution

Employment

Immigration lawyers

Temporary foreign workers program

Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties

Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic