Greenberg v. New Haven Et Al - Document No. 13
Uploaded by
Justia.comGreenberg v. New Haven Et Al - Document No. 13
Uploaded by
Justia.comGreenberg v. New Haven et al Doc.
13
Case 3:07-cv-01198-PCD Document 13 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HYLA GREENBERG, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 3:07cv1198 (PCD)
:
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, ET AL., :
Defendants. :
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
This discrimination suit arises out of Plaintiff Hyla Greenberg’s former employment with
the City of New Haven. Defendants the City of New Haven (“the City”), Livable City Initiatives
(“LCI”), and Andrew Rizzo moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Connecticut
General Statute § 46a-58a and § 31-51q; common law causes of action for intentional infliction
of emotional distress and negligent supervision; and violation of her First Amendment rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Under Rule 7(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the
District of Connecticut, a party shall file a memorandum in opposition to a motion to dismiss
within twenty-one days unless otherwise ordered by the court. “Failure to submit a memorandum
in opposition to a motion may be deemed sufficient cause to grant the motion, except where the
pleadings provide sufficient grounds to deny the motion.” L. R. Civ. P. 7(a).
Upon review of the defendants’ motion and the plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court grants
Defendants’ motion absent objection. Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”) is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the
Complaint was filed more than 90 days after the release of jurisdiction was received. See Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 46a-101(e); Calderon v. Dinan & Dinan PC, No. 3:05cv1341 (JBA), 2006 WL
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:07-cv-01198-PCD Document 13 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
1646157, at *3 (D. Conn. June 13, 2006). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Rizzo for
violation of Title VII, the CFEPA, and the ADEA are dismissed as there is no individual liability
under these statutes. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313-14 (2d Cir. 1995) (no
individual liability under Title VII); Lee v. City of Hartford/Hartford Public Schools, 289 F.
Supp. 2d 25, 28 (D. Conn. 2003) (applying Tomka to the ADEA); Perodeau v. City of Hartford,
259 Conn. 729, 734-44 (2002) (no individual liability under the CFEPA). Plaintiff’s claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress is dismissed as to Rizzo because his alleged conduct
was not extreme and outrageous, see Adams v. Hartford Courant, No. 3:03cv0477 (JCH), 2004
WL 1091728, at *4 (D. Conn. May 14, 2004), and is dismissed as to the City and LCI because
they are immune from liability for the intentional acts of their employees. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-
557n(a)(2); Miner v. Town of Cheshire, 126 F. Supp. 2d 184, 194 (D. Conn. 2000). Plaintiff’s
claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is dismissed because Plaintiff did not allege
that the City knew or reasonably should have known of Rizzo’s propensity to engage in the
alleged conduct. See Ezold v. Wellpoint, Inc., No. 3:06cv00381 (AWT), 2007 WL 1238725, at
*6 (D. Conn. April 28, 2007) (citing Favale v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, 233
F.R.D. 243, 246 (D. Conn. 2005)). Plaintiff’s retaliation claims alleging violations of the First
Amendment and Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q are dismissed because the Plaintiff was
not allegedly speaking on a matter of public concern. See Drolett v. Demarco, No. 3:05cv1335
(JCH), 2007 WL 1851102, at *4-5, *7 (D. Conn. June 26, 2007); Daley v. Aetna Life & Cas.
Co., 249 Conn. 766, 778 (1999) (applying Second Circuit “public concern” analysis to § 31-51q);
see also Hoyt v. Andreucci, 433 F.3d 320, 330 (2d Cir. 2006).
2
Case 3:07-cv-01198-PCD Document 13 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
Defendants have also moved for a more definite statement, requesting an order separating
the causes of action into separate counts and deleting Paragraphs Thirteen through Twenty-Five
and Twenty-Seven through Thirty-Six of the Complaint. Because the Court is hereby dismissing
five of Plaintiff’s nine claims, there is no need to order Plaintiff to clarify his claims or to strike
particular allegations from the Complaint. Further, Defendants’ request to strike a significant
portion of the Complaint is inappropriate at this time because many of these paragraphs appear
on their face to relate to Plaintiff’s surviving discrimination claims. Accordingly, Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 10] is granted absent objection, and Defendants’ Motion for a
More Definite Statement [Doc. No. 11] is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 15th day of November, 2007.
/s/
Peter C. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge
United States District Court
You might also like
- No ratings yetSociety for Good Will to Retarded Children, Inc., Russell Cohen, by His Natural Father Milton Cohen, Audrey Rothstein, by Her Natural Mother Paula Rothstein, Donald William Fearing, by His Natural Father George Fearing, Susan Feibusch, by Her Natural Father Philip Feibusch, Lisa Gorelick, by Her Natural Mother Leila Gorelick, Lynn N. Schenk, by Her Natural Mother Mildred Schenk, Henry F. Segal, by His Natural Father David H. Segal, Susan L. Meehin, by Her Natural Father Milton Meehin, Robert Cunningham, by His Natural Father Charles Cunningham, Nicholas Colacioppo, by His Natural Mother Beatrice Colacioppo, Thomas H. Czerniewicz, by His Natural Father John Czerniewicz, Christopher M. Verdino, by His Natural Father Rudolph Verdino and Barbara L. Karp, by Her Natural Mother Mildred Karp, on Behalf of Themselves and All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Mario M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York, Thomas A. Coughlin, Iii, Individually and as Commi3 pages
