Case: Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk

2:15-cv-02431 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Filed Date: April 29, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the Suffolk County Police Department’s failure to investigate and eliminate discriminatory patterns and practices such as targeting Latinos for traffic and pedestrian stops, stealing their personal property, and engaging in harassing behavior. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs, 20 Latino residents of Suffolk County, New York, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the County of Suffolk, the Suffolk County Police Department, and various individual police officers and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Represented by LatinoJustice PRLDEF and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. The plaintiffs claimed the county and police department showed deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs’ rights by failing to remedy the practice of conducting race-based stops and searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The case was initially assigned to Judge Arthur D. Spatt. However, on April 11, 2018, Judge Spatt recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Finally, on March 25, 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge William F. Kuntz, II, and Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged the police department failed to adopt reforms—such as implementing a system to collect traffic stop data and investigating complaints of officer misconduct in a timely manner—despite a settlement agreement that the Department of Justice entered into with the police department in 2013. The settlement resulted from a 2007 event where a group of teenagers in Suffolk County calling themselves the “Caucasian Crew” murdered an Ecuadorian immigrant. Following the murder, Latino residents began voicing complaints of discriminatory policing. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York began an investigation into the police department’s practices. The resulting limited settlement agreement outlined recommendations for new policies and procedures and was to remain in effect until the police department substantially complied with the agreement for at least one year. The Department of Justice had completed its most recent assessment report in December 2019 and found that the police department was not in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement.

While the Department of Justice conducted its investigation into the practices of the police department, a police officer named as a defendant in the plaintiff’s lawsuit both individually and in his official capacity was perpetrating a years-long scheme wherein he conducted race-based traffic stops and then stole money from the stopped drivers. In 2016, a jury found this officer guilty of theft and official misconduct and he was sentenced to three years in prison. The plaintiffs alleged that other officers in the police department perpetrated similar stop-and-rob schemes and that the county and police department failed to investigate and eliminate such discriminatory practices despite being aware of the department’s pattern of biased policing for years.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 18, 2015, to correct the spelling of a police officer defendant’s last name. The county, police department, and the individual defendants still employed by the police department filed an answer on November 4, 2015, and the officer in prison filed an answer on his own behalf on May 29, 2019. That officer also filed a crossclaim against the county and police department for failing to represent him in the lawsuit, and he filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The county and police department filed an answer to that crossclaim on June 7, 2019, and the plaintiffs filed an answer to the counterclaim on June 19, 2019.

On October 14, 2015, Judge Spatt granted the plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously, because the plaintiffs demonstrated reasonable fear of retaliation and harassment by police officers still employed by the police department. 138 F.Supp.3d 264. Judge Spatt also stayed discovery relating to the officer in prison until his criminal case was resolved. Judge Brown lifted the stay on July 26, 2016.

For the next five years, the parties engaged in discovery. Then, on July 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification for damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs sought to define the damages class as “all Latino or Latina persons who, from January 2012 to the date of a final judgment, were unlawfully ticketed, searched, arrested, or otherwise subject to unlawful police action, including the unlawful deprivation of personal property, following a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” The plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief in the form of a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the police department to cease discriminatory conduct and adopt policies to prevent discriminatory conduct in the future. The plaintiffs sought to define the injunctive relief class as “[a]ll Latino or Latina persons who, at any time after January 2012, have been or in the future will be subject to a vehicular or pedestrian stop or detention by an agent of the Suffolk County Police Department in the county of Suffolk.” Judge Kuntz referred the motion for class certification to Judge Bloom.

Regarding the class certification motion, Judge Bloom filed a Report & Recommendation on March 12, 2021, finding the plaintiffs met the threshold requirements for class certification. 2021 WL 1255011. She recommended the plaintiffs’ class be certified for injunctive relief but not for monetary damages, because an injunction to reform the police department’s policies and practices would benefit the entire class whereas an award of damages would require an individual inquiry into the harm each plaintiff suffered. On April 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz adopted Judge Bloom’s Report & Recommendation and certified the injunctive class as the plaintiffs had sought. 2021 WL 1254408.

Along with their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs requested an adverse inference that the defendants failed to adequately collect and analyze traffic stop data in an effort to shield the police department’s practice and pattern of biased policing against Latinos. In the alternative, the plaintiffs requested a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected traffic stop data would have shown that race-based “traffic stops, searches, tickets, arrests, and/or wrongful deprivations of property” were part of the police department’s traffic-stop practices. In an order on August 5, 2021, Judge Kuntz denied the plaintiff’s request for an adverse inference, because the plaintiffs did not allege the defendants destroyed harmful evidence but only that they failed to collect evidence to avoid liability. However, Judge Kuntz granted the plaintiffs’ request for a rebuttable presumption that the uncollected data would have shown biased policing practices, explaining that the defendants should not be allowed to benefit from failing to maintain adequate records.

Meanwhile, on October 16, 2020, the police department, county, and all individual defendants not including the imprisoned officer filed a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Kuntz issued an order regarding the motion for summary judgment on August 5, 2021. The defendants had asserted that the plaintiffs failed to show municipal liability under § 1983. Additionally, the defendants alleged that the DOJ could have initiated court action against the county in response to a breach of the settlement agreement, and so the Department of Justice’s choice not to initiate court action showed that no such breach occurred. First, Judge Kuntz noted that other factors, such as limited resources, affected which cases the Department of Justice pursued in court and held that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to support a theory of ongoing biased policing practices stemming from the county’s policies. Second, Judge Kuntz denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the county’s liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence to support a theory that the county was aware of its discriminatory policies and showed deliberate indifference to the discriminatory practices that resulted. Third, the defendants moved for summary judgment concerning the supervisory liability of the police deputy chief and the police commissioner. Judge Kuntz denied the motion because the plaintiffs asserted the defendant supervisors received complaints of the discriminatory policing practices but failed to interview the complainants for almost six months. Judge Kuntz also rejected the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity for the supervisors because factual disputes existed about whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendant supervisors to believe their actions were lawful. Finally, Judge Kuntz held that the plaintiffs showed evidence of ongoing constitutional violations, rejecting the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' rights were violated by only one individual officer no longer employed by the police department. He also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the imprisoned officer’s cross-claim against the county and police department for failing to provide him with representation, because defendants do not have a right to representation in civil suits.

	Document
2:15-cv-02431	Docket [PACER]	Sept. 7, 2021	Sept. 7, 2021 Docket
1 & 1-1 2:15-cv-02431	Complaint	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 Complaint
21 2:15-cv-02431	First Amended Complaint	May 18, 2015	May 18, 2015 Complaint
21 2:15-cv-02431	First Amended Complaint	May 18, 2015	May 18, 2015 Complaint
318 2:15-cv-02431	Report and Recommendation Plaintiffs v. The County of Suffolk	March 12, 2021	March 12, 2021 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
319 2:15-cv-02431	Order	April 5, 2021	April 5, 2021 Order/Opinion
322 2:15-cv-02431	Memorandum & Order	Aug. 4, 2021	Aug. 4, 2021 Order/Opinion
372 2:15-cv-02431	Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	June 1, 2022	June 1, 2022 Pleading / Motion / Brief
432-1 2:15-cv-02431	Class Action Settlement Agreement	March 6, 2023	March 6, 2023 Settlement Agreement

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 Clearinghouse
1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 Clearinghouse
2	Summons Issued as to Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
2	Summons Issued as to Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
3	FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 4653087588 (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
3	FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number 4653087588 (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
4	DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
4	DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
5	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Zachary Joseph Bench(Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) Modified on 5/4/2015 (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
5	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Zachary Joseph Bench(Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) Modified on 5/4/2015 (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
6	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Heather P. Lamberg-Kafele (Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
6	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Heather P. Lamberg-Kafele (Receipt# 4653087589 - $150.00) by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Receipt) (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
7	MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
7	MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2015: # 1 Proposed Order) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
8	MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
8	MEMORANDUM in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
9	DECLARATION of Nancy M. Trasande in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2015: # 2 Exhibits - Part 1, # 3 Exhibits - Part 2, # 4 Exhibits - Part 3) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
9	DECLARATION of Nancy M. Trasande in Support re 7 MOTION for Leave to File /Proceed Anonymously filed by Plaintiffs #1-21. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (McMahon, Carol) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2015: # 2 Exhibits - Part 1, # 3 Exhibits - Part 2, # 4 Exhibits - Part 3) (McMahon, Carol). (Entered: 05/04/2015)	April 29, 2015	April 29, 2015 PACER
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Megan E. O'Donnell on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/06/2015)	May 6, 2015	May 6, 2015 PACER
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Megan E. O'Donnell on behalf of John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacities), John Doe Defendants(individually and in their official capacity), Scott Green, Podormer, Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber (aty to be noticed) (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/06/2015)	May 6, 2015	May 6, 2015 PACER
11	NOTICE of Appearance by Zach Bench on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Bench, Zach) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
11	NOTICE of Appearance by Zach Bench on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Bench, Zach) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
12	NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Lamberg-Kafele on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
12	NOTICE of Appearance by Heather Lamberg-Kafele on behalf of Plaintiffs #1-21 (aty to be noticed) (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
13	Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
13	Letter by Plaintiffs #1-21 (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
14	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Edward Webber served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
14	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Edward Webber served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
15	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Milagros Soto served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
15	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Milagros Soto served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
16	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Podormer served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
16	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Podormer served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
17	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Suffolk County Police Department served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
17	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. Suffolk County Police Department served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
18	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. The County of Suffolk served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
18	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Plaintiffs #1-21. The County of Suffolk served on 5/1/2015, answer due 5/22/2015. (Lamberg-Kafele, Heather) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Answer by Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and Answer by Milagros Soto, Suffolk County Police Department, The County of Suffolk, Edward Webber. (O'Donnell, Megan) (Entered: 05/12/2015)	May 12, 2015	May 12, 2015 PACER
20	ORDER granting 19 Motion for an extension of time to file opposition papers to the motion to proceed anonymously, and that a stay be granted to answer the complaint until such time as the motion is decided; and to notify the Court that Suffolk County will not provide Sgt. Scott Greene with a defense and he must obtain his own legal counsel. Request granted. Attorney Megan E. O'Donnell terminated for deft Sgt Scott Greene. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/13/2015. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/13/2015)	May 13, 2015	May 13, 2015 PACER
20	ORDER granting 19 Motion for an extension of time to file opposition papers to the motion to proceed anonymously, and that a stay be granted to answer the complaint until such time as the motion is decided; and to notify the Court that Suffolk County will not provide Sgt. Scott Greene with a defense and he must obtain his own legal counsel. Request granted. Attorney Megan E. O'Donnell terminated for deft Sgt Scott Greene. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/13/2015. (Coleman, Laurie) (Entered: 05/13/2015)	May 13, 2015	May 13, 2015 PACER

Case: Plaintiffs #1-21 v. The County of Suffolk

2:15-cv-02431 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details