United States District Court, E.D. New York
February 3, 2004.
MARIETTA SMALL, Public Administrator of Kings County, as Administrator of the Estate of Andy M. Herrera, et al, Plaintiffs, v., CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants; MARIA PENA, Individually, and as the Administrator of the Estate of Dilcia Pen a, Plaintiffs, v., CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: NINA GERSHON, District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
Certification of Interlocutory Appeal.
Various defendants have moved for certification of interlocutory
appeals, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), of this court's Opinion and Order
dated July 30, 2003, Small v. City of New York, 274 F. Supp.2d 271
(E.D.N.Y. 2003), and for a stay of all proceedings in these cases
pending resolution of the appeals.
The motions for certification under 23 U.S.C. § 1292(b) are denied.
Only one argument
made by the defendants merits discussion. That argument is that,
because some individual police officer defendants may appeal, as of
right, the denial of their motions to dismiss on qualified immunity
grounds, the court should certify an interlocutory appeal on all issues
raised by those defendants, including those as to which no qualified
immunity was asserted in their motions to dismiss, and also should
certify an interlocutory appeal on all issues raised by other defendants,
as to whom the qualified immunity defense is inapplicable altogether.
Accepting this argument would allow the qualified immunity exception to
the final judgment rule to swallow the rule itself.
Such a result would be particularly inappropriate here. Those
defendants who moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds did so only
on the single issue of plaintiffs' substantive due process claim of the
right to be free of state created danger, see Small, 274 F. Supp.2d at
281, and not on all of the issues which defendants now seek to present to
the Court of Appeals, on an interlocutory basis, before a full
development of the facts.
Reconsideration or Clarification.
The PBA defendants move in the alternative for reconsideration or
clarification of the Opinion and Order dated July 30, 2003, pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 6.3, regarding plaintiffs' state law claims.
First, the motion for clarification is granted to the following
extent: The Opinion and Order identifies the negligent supervision and
training of the individual PBA representatives named in the complaints as
the only state law claim against the PBA and its officials. See Small,
274 F. Supp.2d at 274. This was based upon the representations of
plaintiffs' counsel on oral argument of the motions to dismiss. The state
negligent supervision and training claim against the PBA defendants
is based solely upon the same factual allegations that underlie the
federal claim for denial of access to the courts, namely, allegations of
actions taken after the accident. Thus, there is no state wrongful death
claim against the PBA defendants.
Second, the motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to
dismiss the state negligence claim just described is denied. The
defendants have pointed to no "matters or controlling decisions" which
the court has overlooked. Indeed, none of the authority cited by the
defendants on the motion for reconsideration even addresses the issue of
a common law negligence claim of the sort alleged here.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.