Case: Stauber v. City of New York

1:03-cv-09163 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Nov. 19, 2003

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 19, 2003, three individuals and a public interest organization filed three lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York. These cases were captioned Stauber v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09162), Conrad v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09163), and Gutman v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09164), and all raised similar claims. The plaintiffs' lawsuits stemmed from incidents that occurred during a …

On November 19, 2003, three individuals and a public interest organization filed three lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the City of New York. These cases were captioned Stauber v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09162), Conrad v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09163), and Gutman v. City of New York (Docket No. 1:03-cv-09164), and all raised similar claims. The plaintiffs' lawsuits stemmed from incidents that occurred during a February 15, 2003, demonstration against U.S. military action in Iraq. They alleged that certain practices used by the New York Police Department to manage crowds at large demonstrations violated rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, sought damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For purposes of the claims for injunctive relief only, the three lawsuits were consolidated.

On June 2, 2004, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. The specific practices plaintiffs sought to enjoin were: (1) the practice of unreasonably impeding access to demonstration sites without making reasonable efforts to provide information to the public about how otherwise to attain access to the site (the "access policy"); (2) the practice of unreasonably restricting access to and participation in demonstrations through the use of metal, interlocking barricades to create "pens" in which demonstrators are required to assemble (the "pens policy"); (3) the unreasonable, generalized searching of the possessions of persons as a condition of attaining access to certain demonstrations (the "bag search policy"); and (4) the unreasonable use of horses to forcibly disperse peacefully assembled demonstrators (the "Mounted Unit policy"). In response, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring these claims, and sought to justify the practices on grounds of national security and public safety.

On July 16, 2004, the District Court (Judge Robert W. Sweet) granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The court granted injunctive relief as to the access and pens policies on First Amendment grounds, and granted injunctive relief as to the bag search policy on Fourth Amendment grounds. However, the court noted that less intrusive searches, such as those involving magnetometers, did not fall within the scope of the injunction. 2004 WL 1593870. The court denied relief as to the Mounted Unit policy for lack of standing. Specifically, the court found that although the Mounted Unit was deployed at the February 2003 demonstration, the plaintiffs had not shown that the Mounted Unit was "likely to be deployed at a future demonstration, or that injury is likely to occur as a result." Thus, the court found the plaintiffs had not satisfied the Article III "case or controversy" requirement.

In its July 16 opinion, the court also directed the parties to submit a proposed preliminary injunction. The parties agreed as to most terms, but could not come to an agreement on the language enjoining the bag search policy. This disagreement revolved around the conditions necessary for the bag search policy not to be enjoined. The City of New York, citing national security and the use of knapsacks in then-recent bombings in Madrid, argued that the word "credible" should be used to modify the threat to public safety referred to in the July 16 opinion as one of the conditions under which the bag search policy would not be enjoined. The plaintiffs countered that the threat to public safety should be "specific" in order for it to render the injunction inoperative. On July 27, 2004, the court resolved this impasse by adopting "the more traditional probable cause standard for searches . . . rather than either 'specific' or 'credible.'" 2004 WL 1663600.

The City filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 2004, which it ultimately withdrew. On March 31, 2008, the parties announced a settlement that replaced the preliminary injunction and disposed of the cases with prejudice. As part of this settlement, the City of New York agreed: (1) to pay one plaintiff $15,000 to settle his claim for damages; (2) to pay another plaintiff $10,000 to settle his claim for damages; and, (3) to pay $100,000 to the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation to settle all claims for attorneys' fees. The City further agreed to adopt the following formal policies:

In cases in which the special event is a demonstration, information on expected street and sidewalk closings and information on how the public may access a demonstration site will be disseminated to the media and to event organizers and should, if possible, be posted on the Department's website. Officers assigned to such events should be given detailed instructions on such closings and points of access prior to assignment. Detail supervisors should also be advised of street closures and points of access and any changes of points of access which occur during the event and which were not previously anticipated and publicized. Officers assigned to such events shall provide information to the public at the event about available points of access.

* * *

Barrier configuration for demonstrations should not unreasonably restrict access to and participation in the event. For example, attendees should be permitted to leave a barriered area at any time. In addition, if crowd conditions and other circumstances permit, participants should be permitted to leave and return to the same area. Sufficient openings in the barricades should be maintained for purpose of permitting attendees to leave expeditiously and return to the event as described in this paragraph.

* * *

Where the use of the Mounted Unit becomes necessary for crowd control purposes, incident commanders are reminded that if Mounted officers are deployed for such purpose it is important to ensure that a crowd or group to be dispersed has sufficient avenues of escape and/or retreat available to them and has had a reasonable chance to disperse.

The court approved this settlement on April 7, 2008. There is no further docket activity in this case as of March 2019, and so this case is presumably closed.

Summary Authors

Greg in den Berken (8/22/2014)

Eva Richardson (1/30/2019)

Related Cases

Berg v. Kelly, Southern District of New York (2012)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4525058/parties/conrad-v-nyc/


Judge(s)

Sweet, Robert Workman (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Donoghue, Gail (New York)

Judge(s)

Sweet, Robert Workman (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Donoghue, Gail (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

April 7, 2008 Docket

Opinion Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order [Barring Defendants from Deposing Plaintiffs' Counsel]

2004 WL 1013342, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 7973

May 7, 2004 Order/Opinion

Order and Opinion [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction]

2004 WL 1593870, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 13350

July 16, 2004 Order/Opinion

Amendment Opinion [Amending July 16, 2004, Opinion]

July 20, 2004 Order/Opinion

Order [Amending July 16, 2004, Opinion, Denying Defendants' Request for Further Hearing, and Granting Ten Day Stay of Preliminary Injunction]

2004 WL 1663600, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14191

July 27, 2004 Order/Opinion

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction

2004 WL 1683166, 2004 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14192

July 27, 2004 Order/Opinion
14

Stipulation of Settlement and Order

April 7, 2008 Settlement Agreement

Resources

Title Description External URL

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4525058/conrad-v-nyc/

Last updated May 28, 2022, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT filed. Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 491714. (laq) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

Nov. 19, 2003 PACER
2

RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATE filed by Jeremy Conrad . (laq) (Entered: 11/20/2003)

Nov. 19, 2003 PACER
3

RETURN OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint. The City of New York served on 11/19/2003, answer due 12/9/2003. Service was accepted by Linda Lawyer, Process Clerk. Document filed by Jeremy Conrad. (djc, ) (Entered: 12/04/2003)

Nov. 24, 2003 PACER
4

SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Raymond W. Kelly served on 11/19/2003, answer due 12/9/2003. Service was accepted by Michael Cappello. Document filed by Jeremy Conrad. (djc, ) (Entered: 12/04/2003)

Nov. 24, 2003 PACER
6

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Robert W. Sweet. Judge Unassigned no longer assigned to the case. (laq, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

Dec. 3, 2003 PACER
5

ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Jane Does, John Does, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York.(jge, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)

Jan. 28, 2004 PACER
7

ORDER on Law Student Intern Appearance Form; I authorize student Elizabeth Moller: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of client Jeremy Conrad; and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the client. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet (not dated)) (kkc, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

Feb. 9, 2004 PACER
8

ORDER on Law Student Intern Appearance Form; I authorize student Justin Giovannelli: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of client Jeremy Conrad; and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the client. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/4/2004) (kkc, ) (Entered: 02/11/2004)

Feb. 9, 2004 PACER
9

ORDER on Law Student Intern Appearance Form; I authorize student Joseph Treloar: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of client Jeremy Conrad; and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the client. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/4/2004) (kkc, ) (Entered: 02/13/2004)

Feb. 9, 2004 PACER

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Sweet from Gail Donoghue dated 5/14/04 re: Granting defendant's request rescheduling the evidentiary hearing for 6/2/04. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/24/04) (tp, ). ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ENTERED IN CASE #03cv9162, DOC. #30. (Entered: 05/27/2004)

May 27, 2004 PACER
10

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL from Memorandum & Opinion, Memorandum & Opinion, Order, Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Jane Does, John Does, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. Filing fee $ 255.00, receipt number E 516152. Copies of Notice of Interlocutory Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Corporation Counsel. (tp, ) (Entered: 08/09/2004)

Aug. 6, 2004 PACER
11

USCA SCHEDULING ORDER as to 10 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by The City of New York, John Does, Raymond W. Kelly, Jane Does USCA Case Number 04-4335-cv. Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk USCA. Certified: 9/8/04. Appeal Record due by 10/4/2004. Appellant Brief due by 10/12/2004. Appellee Brief due by 11/12/2004. (tp, ) (Entered: 09/16/2004)

Sept. 16, 2004 PACER
12

MANDATE of USCA WITHDRAWING APPEAL (Certified Copy) as to 10 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by The City of New York,, John Does,, Raymond W. Kelly,, Jane Does, USCA Case Number 04-4331(L), 04-4335 (Con), 04-4336 (Con)....that the appeal is hereby WITHDRAWN pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk USCA. Certified: 7/21/2005. (nd, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)

Aug. 19, 2005 PACER
13

ORDER: The Clerk of the Court terminate all pending motions and the action is dismissed. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 1/4/2007) (jar) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

Jan. 9, 2008 PACER
14

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER: The City of New York agrees to pay plaintiff Jeremy Conrad $15,000 to settle his claim for damages arising out of his alleged physical injuries and false arrest, to pay Marilyn Gutman as executor of the Estate of Jeremiah Gutman $10,000 for damages to settle the claim of Jeremiah Gutman arising out of the alleged physical injuries alleged int he complaint; and to pay $100,000 to the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation to settled all plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees. These amounts are in full satisfaction of all claims against defendants alleged int he complaint, or related to the claims alleged in the complaint, including claims for equitable or injunctive relief and as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/1/08) (tro) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

April 7, 2008 PACER

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Policing

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 19, 2003

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are three individuals and a public interest organization who are suing on behalf of themselves and the organization's members, and alleged that certain practices used by the New York Police Department to manage crowds at large demonstrations violated rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of New York (New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Right to travel

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Attorneys fees

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $125,000

Order Duration: 2004 - 2008

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Over/Unlawful Detention

Pattern or Practice

Search policies