Case: Garcia v. Bloomberg

1:11-cv-06957 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Oct. 4, 2011

Closed Date: 2017

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On October 4, 2011, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs' lawsuit stems from a demonstration and march crossing the Brooklyn Bridge that took place on October 1, 2011. The plaintiffs alleged that during that demonstration, the New York Police Department "engaged in a mass false arrest of approximately 700 persons who participated…

On October 4, 2011, members of the Occupy Wall Street movement filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs' lawsuit stems from a demonstration and march crossing the Brooklyn Bridge that took place on October 1, 2011. The plaintiffs alleged that during that demonstration, the New York Police Department "engaged in a mass false arrest of approximately 700 persons who participated in, or were in proximity to," the demonstration and that "[t]he NYPD, as a matter of policy and practice, engages in unconstitutional tactics to disturb, disrupt, penalize, infringe upon and criminalize constitutionally protected speech and assembly." They claimed that this conduct violated the plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by Partnership for Civil Justice and Southern Legal Counsel, sought class certification, damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs also sought entry of an order declaring the arrests in question to be null and void, and authorizing each individual class member to deny that such an arrest ever occurred in response to any inquiry, such as an employment application.

On December 12, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. This added several named plaintiffs to the litigation as well as additional claims, namely claims alleging violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and N.Y. General Municipal

Law § 50-e. Second Am. Compl 1, 39. The Second Amended Complaint also amended the remedies sought, adding a paragraph requesting:

Entry of a declaratory judgment that N.Y. City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) parading without a permit code provision is unconstitutional, facially or as applied to the extent it is applied as a strict liability offense, and entry of a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement as a strict liability offense (i.e., enforcement in the absence of fair notice or warnings/orders to those subject to potential arrest);

Id. 42.

This was added in response to the defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that the Fourth Amendment claims should be dismissed because N.Y. City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) had provided the arresting officers with probable cause for the arrests. New York City Adm. Code § 10-110(c) provides that a "procession, parade or race shall be permitted upon any street or in any public place only after a written permit therefor has been obtained from the police commissioner."

On December 23, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The defendants advanced two main arguments, namely (1) that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed for the arrests, and (2) that the plaintiffs' claims for damages against the City and its officials should be dismissed because the rights at issue were not clearly established. On the qualified immunity point, the defendants argued that probable cause existed for the arrests because the plaintiffs participated in a "parade" without a permit in violation of N.Y. City Administrative Code, § 10-110, and that the video proof on which the plaintiffs relied in their complaint demonstrated that the marchers violated Penal Law § 240.20(5) by "obstruct[ing] vehicular ... traffic" on the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge.

On June 7, 2012, the District Court (Judge Jed S. Rakoff) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the Court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the officers who arrested them, but dismissed the claims for damages against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Police Commissioner Kelly.

In denying the motion to dismiss the claims against the arresting officers, the Court explained that the defense of qualified immunity at this stage hinged on whether it would "be clear to reasonable police officers, in the situation the defendant officers confronted, that they lacked probable cause to believe (i) that the plaintiff demonstrators had committed a crime and (ii) that the plaintiff demonstrators had received fair warning?" Garcia v. Bloomberg, 865 F. Supp. 2d 478, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Court found that there were two criminal statutes that the plaintiffs apparently violated. However, the Court found that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiffs failed to receive fair warning, and thus concluded that the defense of qualified immunity did not defeat the claims at this stage of the litigation.

As to the claims for damages against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Police Commissioner Kelly, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege such claims. The plaintiffs had advanced three arguments for these claims. First, they argued that the existence of "Disorder Control Guidelines," the arrests of protesters in 2003 and 2004, and arrests that occurred a week before the incident in this case, all supported the conclusion that the City has a policy of conducting mass false arrests in order to discourage protesting. Second, the plaintiffs argued that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly either ratified or directly participated in the alleged constitutional violations by failing to act or investigate the incidents. Finally, the plaintiffs argued that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly faced liability based on their failure to train the arresting officers. The Court rejected each of these three arguments, finding the facts cited in support of them too attenuated or implausible to support actionable claims, and thus dismissed those claims. Id.at 491-94.

On June 28, 2012, the officer defendants appealed the District Court's denial of their motion to dismiss the complaint against them on qualified immunity grounds. The defendants argued that the District Court had erred in concluding that the complaint, and the other materials that could properly be considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, did not establish that the defendants had probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for disorderly conduct.

The Second Circuit disagreed. On August 21, 2014, a divided Second Circuit (Judges Guido Calabresi and Gerard E. Lynch, with Judge Lynch writing the opinion) affirmed the District Court's ruling. The Second Circuit found that:

Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true, as we must, we believe that they have adequately alleged actionable conduct. Plaintiffs have alleged that the police directed the demonstrators' activity along the route of their march, at times specifically condoning, or even directing, behavior that on its face would violate traffic laws. When the bottleneck at the pedestrian walkway of the Bridge led the demonstrators to pool into the roadway, the police did not immediately direct them out of the street, and when they did undertake to issue such a warning to clear the roadway, they did so in a way that no reasonable officer who observed the warning could have believed was audible beyond the first rank of the protesters at the front of the crowd. According to plaintiffs' account, the police then retreated back onto the Bridge in a way that would reasonably have been understood, and was understood, by the bulk of the demonstrators to be a continuation of the earlier practice of allowing the march to proceed in violation of normal traffic rules.

We emphasize that the procedural posture of this case presents a formidable challenge to defendants' position. They urge us to find that qualified immunity is established for all defendants based on plaintiffs' version of events (plus a few inconclusive photos and videos). The evidence, once a full record is developed, may contradict plaintiffs' allegations, or establish that some or all of the defendants were not aware of the facts that plaintiffs allege would have alerted them to the supposed implicit permission. We express no view on whether some or all of the defendants may be entitled to qualified immunity at a later stage of the case. But to reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, we would have to say that on the basis of plaintiffs' account of events, no officer who participated in or directed the arrests could have thought that plaintiffs were invited onto the roadway and then arrested without fair warning of the revocation of this invitation. Since we cannot do so on this limited record, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Garcia v. Does, No. 12-2634-cv, 2014 WL 4099270, at *9 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) (footnotes and citation omitted).

Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissented. She wrote that the majority had turned the qualified immunity standard upside down, and would have found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at *13.

On December 17, 2014, the Second Circuit entered an order granting the defendants' petition for rehearing en banc and withdrawing its opinion of August 21, 2014 was. On the petition for rehearing, the Second Circuit then concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. On February 24, 2015, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The court found that:

In this case, the facts alleged in the Complaint, and those depicted in the videos, do not bear out plaintiffs’ legal conclusion that the officers’ actions constituted “an actual and apparent grant of permission” to the demonstrators to utilize the roadway. Still less do those facts plausibly describe a situation in which reasonable officers would have clearly understood that their actions were interpreted by the demonstrators as a grant of permission, such that arresting the demonstrators would violate clearly established law. Accordingly, dismissal of the Complaint is required.

Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 97 (2d Cir. 2015).

The Second Circuit's remanded the case to the district court. On April 28, 2015, the plaintiffs requested leave to filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint would contain new allegations, most relating to a police chief who was the ranking officer on the scene. These included allegations that the chief admitted he erred in not using police resources like scooters or mesh to block protestors from accessing the roadway. Other new allegations in the third amended complaint would concern the command and decision-making structures of the NYPD, again focusing primarily on the chief on the scene.

In a September 10, 2015 order, Judge Rakoff denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. He found that none of the additional allegations would contradict the Second Circuit's findings, stating that the new material had no bearing on its finding that the police had probable cause to arrest the marches, and that the further similar allegations of limited permission earlier in the march or implied permission on the roadway would still not be enough to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Rakoff, finding the proposed amendments to the complaint futile, denied leave to amend, and directed the clerk of court to enter a final judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice and close the case. 2015 WL 54441222. Per Judge Rakoff's order, the district court closed the case on September 15, 2015.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision denying their request to amend their complaint to the Second Circuit on October 2, 2015. On October 13, 2016, the Second Circuit (Circuit Judges Gerard E. Lynch, Christopher F. Droney, and Chief District Judge Christina Reiss of the District of Vermont, sitting by designation) issued a summary order affirming the district court's decision. It found that:

The proposed Third Amended Complaint does not alter our conclusions in Garcia III. Rather, it only asserts that Esposito had better knowledge of the state of mind of the demonstrators than the other individual officers had, namely that Plaintiffs lacked the intent to violate the law. But the state of mind of the demonstrators—whether they thought that they were participating in a sanctioned, First–Amendment–protected roadway march or whether they were intentionally or recklessly blocking traffic—is irrelevant to the question of probable cause . . . Absent the allegation of specific facts to support a direct communication from police to marchers that the marchers were permitted to occupy the road, the Third Amended Complaint fails to change our prior conclusion that the defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs for violating N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20(5).

Garcia v. Bloomberg, 662 Fed. App'x 50, 53-54 (2d Cir. 2016).

The plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of certiorari, but the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 19, 2017. 136 S.Ct. 2266 (Mem). The case is now closed after the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint.

Summary Authors

Greg in den Berken (9/20/2014)

Sarah McDonald (8/13/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349650/parties/garcia-v-bloomberg/


Judge(s)

Calabresi, Guido (Connecticut)

Livingston, Debra Ann (New York)

Lynch, Gerard E. (New York)

Rakoff, Jed Saul (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Costello, Andrea Hope (Florida)

Messineo, Carl L (District of Columbia)

Verheyden-Hilliard, Mara E (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Larkin, Arthur G. III (New York)

Weiss, Dara Lynn (New York)

Judge(s)

Calabresi, Guido (Connecticut)

Livingston, Debra Ann (New York)

Lynch, Gerard E. (New York)

Rakoff, Jed Saul (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Costello, Andrea Hope (Florida)

Messineo, Carl L (District of Columbia)

Verheyden-Hilliard, Mara E (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Larkin, Arthur G. III (New York)

Weiss, Dara Lynn (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:11-cv-06957

Docket

Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Docket
1

1:11-cv-06957

Class Action Complaint

Oct. 4, 2011

Oct. 4, 2011

Complaint
13

1:11-cv-06957

Second Amended Complaint

Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Complaint
25

1:11-cv-06957

Opinion and Order [Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Against the Arresting Officers; Granting Motions to Dismiss Claims Against the City]

865 F.Supp.2d 478

June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Order/Opinion
85-1

1:11-cv-06957

0:12-02634

Second Circuit Opinion [Affirming District Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss Complaint on Grounds of Qualified Immunity]

Garcia v. Does

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

764 F.3d 170

Aug. 21, 2014

Aug. 21, 2014

Order/Opinion
74

1:11-cv-06957

0:12-02634

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

779 F.3d 84

Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

Order/Opinion
44

1:11-cv-06957

Memorandum Order

2015 WL 5444122

Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

Order/Opinion
58

1:11-cv-06957

15-03113

Summary Order

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4349650/garcia-v-bloomberg/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:16 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Jane and John Does 1-40, Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 18141)Document filed by Yari Osorio, Marcel Cartier, Karina Garcia, Benjamin Becker, Cassandra Regan.(ama) (ama). (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/5/2011: # 1 ex.a) (ama). (Entered: 10/05/2011)

1 ex.a

View on PACER

Oct. 4, 2011

Oct. 4, 2011

RECAP
2

SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint, served. The City of New York served on 10/5/2011, answer due 10/26/2011. Service was accepted by Lumumba Ansah, service window clerk. Document filed by Yari Osorio; Marcel Cartier; Karina Garcia; Benjamin Becker; Cassandra Regan. (Verheyden-Hilliard, Mara) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

Oct. 5, 2011

Oct. 5, 2011

PACER
3

ORDER: This Order confirms the schedule set during a the parties' initial pretrial conference with the Court on October 6, 2011. The defendants have until November 4, 2011 to either answer or move to dismiss the Complaint. Opposition papers to any motion to dismiss must be filed by November 18, 2011. Reply papers must be filed by November 30, 2011. Oral argument will be held on December 7, 2011 at 3:00 P.M. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/6/2011) (rdz) (Entered: 10/12/2011)

Oct. 11, 2011

Oct. 11, 2011

PACER
4

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity) served on 10/19/2011, answer due 11/9/2011; Raymond W. Kelly(Individually) served on 10/19/2011, answer due 11/9/2011. Service was made by MAIL. Document filed by Yari Osorio; Marcel Cartier; Karina Garcia; Benjamin Becker; Cassandra Regan. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

PACER
5

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually) served on 10/19/2011, answer due 11/9/2011; Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity) served on 10/19/2011, answer due 11/9/2011. Service was made by MAIL. Document filed by Yari Osorio; Marcel Cartier; Karina Garcia; Benjamin Becker; Cassandra Regan. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

Oct. 26, 2011

Oct. 26, 2011

PACER
6

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III on behalf of Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

Nov. 1, 2011

Nov. 1, 2011

PACER
7

MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. Responses due by 11/30/2011 Return Date set for 12/12/2011 at 03:00 PM.(Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

Nov. 9, 2011

Nov. 9, 2011

PACER
8

DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin in Support re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

Nov. 9, 2011

Nov. 9, 2011

PACER
9

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

Nov. 9, 2011

Nov. 9, 2011

PACER
10

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dara Lynn Weiss on behalf of Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York (Weiss, Dara) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

Nov. 10, 2011

Nov. 10, 2011

PACER
11

NOTICE of Filing of First Amended Complaint re: 1 Complaint, 7 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Marcel Cartier, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Cassandra Regan. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 11/30/2011)

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
12

AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Jane and John Does 1-40, Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York, Jane and John Does 1-40 with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Yari Osorio, Karina Garcia, Cassandra Regan, Marcel Cartier, Benjamin Becker, Yareidis Perez, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh, Brook Feinstein, Michael Crickmore. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by Benjamin Becker, Yari Osorio, Cassandra Regan, Marcel Cartier, Karina Garcia. (Received in the night deposit box on 11/30/11 at 7:19pm)(mro) (Entered: 12/01/2011)

Nov. 30, 2011

Nov. 30, 2011

PACER
13

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 12 Amended Complaint,, against Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Jane and John Does 1-40(Individually), Jane and John Does 1-40(in their official capacities), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by Yari Osorio, Tyler Sova, Karina Garcia, Michael Crickmore, Cassandra Regan, Stephanie Jean Umoh, Brooke Feinstein, Marcel Cartier, Yareidis Perez, Benjamin Becker. Related document: 12 Amended Complaint,, filed by Tyler Sova, Yareidis Perez, Michael Crickmore, Benjamin Becker, Yari Osorio, Cassandra Regan, Stephanie Jean Umoh, Karina Garcia, Marcel Cartier.(lmb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/16/2011: # 1 Exhibit A) (lmb). (Entered: 12/16/2011)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

PACER
14

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually). Responses due by 1/6/2012 Return Date set for 1/19/2012 at 05:00 PM.(Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

PACER
15

DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice.. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

PACER
16

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice.. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 12/23/2011)

Dec. 23, 2011

Dec. 23, 2011

PACER
17

NOTICE of Motion Answering Papers. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Marcel Cartier, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/06/2012)

Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

PACER
18

DECLARATION of Carl L. Messineo in Support re: 17 Notice (Other). Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Marcel Cartier, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/06/2012)

Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

PACER
19

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice., 7 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Marcel Cartier, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 01/06/2012)

Jan. 6, 2012

Jan. 6, 2012

RECAP
20

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice.. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

Jan. 13, 2012

Jan. 13, 2012

RECAP
21

FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - SIGNATURE ERROR - NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, against the defendant(s) All Defendants. Document filed by Marcel Cartier. (Messineo, Carl) Modified on 1/25/2012 (dt). (Entered: 01/24/2012)

Jan. 24, 2012

Jan. 24, 2012

PACER
22

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) FILED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON BEHALF OF MARCEL CARTIER: This Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pertains solely and exclusively to the claims of individual plaintiff Marcel Cartier. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/30/2012) (tro) (Entered: 01/30/2012)

Jan. 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012

PACER
23

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ORAL ARGUMENT held on 1/19/2012 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Khristine Sellin, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/29/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/7/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/3/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

PACER
24

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ORAL ARGUMENT proceeding held on 1/19/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/02/2012)

May 2, 2012

May 2, 2012

PACER
25

OPINION AND ORDER: #101958 In sum, for the reasons stated within, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the officers who arrested them, but grants the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Monell claims against the City, Mayor Bloomberg, and Commissioner Kelly. The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to close items number 7 and 14 on the docket of this case. The Court directs the parties to jointly call Chambers no later than June 15, 2012 to schedule further proceedings in this case. (re: 14 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, with prejudice filed by Michael R. Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, 7 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). MOTION to Dismiss the complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Michael R. Bloomberg, The City of New York, Raymond W. Kelly.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 6/7/2012) (laq) Modified on 6/20/2012 (jab). (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

RECAP
26

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrea Hope Costello on behalf of Benjamin Becker, Marcel Cartier, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

PACER
27

NOTICE OF APPEAL from 25 Opinion & Order. Document filed by Jane and John Does 1-40(Individually), Jane and John Does 1-40(in their official capacities). Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number 465401042307. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (nd) (Entered: 06/29/2012)

June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

RECAP
28

Letter addressed to Judge Jed S. Rakoff from Carl Messineo dated 6/28/2012 re: Pursuant to the June 26, 2012 status conference, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this letter brief to assist in consideration of Plaintiffs' request to conduct limited discovery on the identity of John and Jane Doe (Doe) Defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) (i.e., persons who caused the mass arrest and/or who arrested the Plaintiffs). (rjm) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012

PACER
29

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Accordingly, plaintiffs' request for discovery regarding defendants' identities is hereby denied, without prejudice to being renewed once defendants' appeal is decided. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 7/26/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

PACER
30

Letter addressed to Judge Jed S. Rakoff from Dara L. Weiss dated 7/6/2012 re: Defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay all further proceedings pending defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeals on the issue of qualified immunity pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York.(lmb) (Entered: 07/27/2012)

July 27, 2012

July 27, 2012

PACER
31

STIPULATION AND ORDER: 1. The Second Amended Complaint is deemed to be amended nunc pro tunc as of the date it was filed, i.e., December 13, 2011, to substitute Chief Joseph Esposito, Assistant Chief Thomas Purtell, Captain Jack Jaskaran, and Police Officers Angela Villota (Shield # 4206), Paul K. Reres (Shield # 19924), Hang-Yip Chen (Shield # 11880), Miguel Cruz (Shield # 14629), Matthew Grady (Shield # 7632), Rosalynn Mejia (Shield # 28084), Rafael Velazquez (Shield # 4327), and Erwin Arrunategui (Shield # 30170) for the defendants denominated "John/Jane Does" ## 1-11; and 2. The court's opinion and order dated June 7, 2012, is hereby amended nunc pro tunc to apply to the foregoing individual defendants. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/21/2012) (djc) (Entered: 09/24/2012)

Sept. 24, 2012

Sept. 24, 2012

PACER
32

STIPULATION: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between all parties to this action, that: The City Law Department agrees to accept service of the summons and Second Amended Complaint on behalf of the following indi vidual defendants: Chief Joseph Esposito, Assistant Chief Thomas Purtell, Captain Jack Jaskaran, and Police Officers Angela Villota (Shield # 4206), Paul K. Reres (Shield # 19924), Hang-Yip Chen (Shield # 11880), Miguel Cruz (Shield # 14629), Matthew Grady (Shield # 7632), Rosalynn Mejia (Shield # 28084), Rafael Velazquez (Shield # 4327), and Erwin Arrunategui (Shield # 30170); The above-named defendants waive all objections to the manner of service and timeliness of service; Service shall be made by overnight delivery of one (1) summons addressed to each of the above-named defendants, and one (1) copy of the Second Amended Complaint, to the City Law Department, Attn: Arthur G. Larkin, Esq., Senior Counsel, 100 Church Street, New York, New York 10007, within thirty (30) days of the date of this stipulation; and the above-named defendant's answer to the Second Amended Complaint shall be due thirty (30) days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issues a final decision or order resolving the appeal in this matter (Docket #12-2634) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/2/2013) (ago) (Entered: 01/03/2013)

Jan. 3, 2013

Jan. 3, 2013

PACER
33

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Second Amended Complaint served on Chief Joseph Esposito, Assistant Chief Thomas Purtell, Captain Jack Jaskaran, and Police Officers Angela Villota (Shield #4206), Paul K. Reres (Shield #19924), Hang-Yip Chen (Shield #11880), Miguel Cruz (Shield #14629), Matthew Grady (Shield #7632), Rosalynn Mejia (Shield #28084), Rafael Velazquez (Shield #4327) and Erwin Arrunategui (Shield #30170) on 01/23/2013. Service was accepted by Arthur G. Larkin, Esq, Senior Counsel. Service was made by Overnight Delivery. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 01/29/2013)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Jan. 29, 2013

Jan. 29, 2013

PACER
34

OPINION of USCA as to 27 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jane and John Does 1-40. USCA Case Number 12-2634-cv. Defendants-appellants, New York Police Department officers, appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge) denying their motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiffs-appellees' complaint against them on qualified immunity grounds. Defendants argue that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs' complaint, and other materials that could properly be considered on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, did not establish that defendants had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiffs for disorderly conduct. On August 21, 2014, we issued an opinion affirming the district court's judgment. On December 17, 2014, this opinion was withdrawn. On appellants' petition for rehearing, we now grant the petition, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 02/24/2015. (nd) (Entered: 02/24/2015)

Feb. 24, 2015

Feb. 24, 2015

PACER
35

MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 27 Notice of Appeal, filed by Jane and John Does 1-40 USCA Case Number 12-2634. The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district courts record and the parties briefs. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the Complaint. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 4/20/2015. (tp) (Entered: 04/21/2015)

April 20, 2015

April 20, 2015

PACER
36

MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, . Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh.(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

PACER
37

FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE DOCUMENT #41) - MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, . . Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) Modified on 5/20/2015 (ldi). (Entered: 04/28/2015)

April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

PACER
38

DECLARATION of Carl Messineo in Support re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, .. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Second and Third Amended Complaints)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

1 Exhibit 1: Third Amended Complaint

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Second and Third Amended Complaints

View on PACER

April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

PACER
39

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, . . Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
40

DECLARATION of Arthur G. Larkin in Opposition re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, .. Document filed by Michael R. Bloomberg(Individually), Michael R. Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(in his official capacity), Raymond W. Kelly(Individually), The City of New York. (Larkin, Arthur) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

May 12, 2015

May 12, 2015

PACER
41

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, . . Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Submitting Table of Contents and Table of Authorities)(Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

1 Errata Submitting Table of Contents and Table of Authorities

View on PACER

May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

PACER
42

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, . . Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

PACER
43

DECLARATION of Carl Messineo in Support re: 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 13 Amended Complaint,,, .. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 05/19/2015)

May 19, 2015

May 19, 2015

PACER
44

MEMORANDUM ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that plaintiffs' proposed amendments are futile and denies their motion for leave to amend. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice and to close the case in its entirety. Denying 36 Motion to Amend/Correct. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/9/2015) (rjm) (Entered: 09/11/2015)

Sept. 10, 2015

Sept. 10, 2015

RECAP
45

CLERK'S JUDGMENT: It is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Order dated September 10, 2015, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are futile and denies their motion for leave to amend; and judgment is entered dismissing the complaint with prejudice; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 09/15/2015) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal, # 2 Right to Appeal)(km) (Entered: 09/15/2015)

1 Right to Appeal

View on PACER

2 Right to Appeal

View on PACER

Sept. 15, 2015

Sept. 15, 2015

PACER
47

MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 46 Notice of Appeal, filed by Tyler Sova, Yareidis Perez, Michael Crickmore, Benjamin Becker, Yari Osorio, Cassandra Regan, Stephanie Jean Umoh, Karina Garcia, Brooke Feinstein. USCA Case Number 15−3113−cv. Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 11/4/2016. (nd) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

Nov. 4, 2016

Nov. 4, 2016

46

NOTICE OF APPEAL from 45 Clerk's Judgment,. Document filed by Benjamin Becker, Michael Crickmore, Brooke Feinstein, Karina Garcia, Yari Osorio, Yareidis Perez, Cassandra Regan, Tyler Sova, Stephanie Jean Umoh. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Messineo, Carl) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Occupy

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 4, 2011

Closing Date: 2017

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are several Occupy Wall Street protesters who claim that they were arrested while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011, during an Occupy Wall Street protest. They are suing the City of New York on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, contending that these arrests were unlawful.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

City of New York (City of New York, New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Over/Unlawful Detention

Pattern or Practice