Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vieira v. Honeoye Central School District

United States District Court, Second Circuit

May 8, 2013

SHELLY VIEIRA, individually and as Parent and Guardian of J. V. a minor, Plaintiffs,
v.
HONEOYE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MONROE #1 BOARD OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (BOCES), and DAVID G. LASPESA, WILLIAM SCHOFIELD, BETSY WALKER, individually and in their official capacities and other known or unknown employees of the Honeoye Central School District, Defendants.

Jeffrey Wicks, Esq., Jeffrey Wicks, PLLC, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Edward J. Sarzynski, Esq., Hogan, Sarzynski, Lynch, Surowka & DeWind LLP, Johnson City, NY, for Defendants BOCES and Betsy Walker.

Jeffrey J. Calabrese, Esq., Bethany A. Centrone, Esq., Meghan M. Lynch, Esq., Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants Honeoye Central School District, William Schofield and David G. Laspesa.

DECISION AND ORDER

CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, for reconsideration of the Court's prior Decision and Order, docketed on November 17, 2010, ECF No. 57, which partially dismissed the amended complaint. It is also before the Court on defendants BOCES' and Betsy Walker's ("Walker") cross-motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and upon reconsideration, dismissal of the Fifth and Sixth causes of action and entry of judgment. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is granted in part, denied in part, and BOCES and Walker's cross-motion is granted in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The amended complaint filed on August 5, 2009, makes the following claims against BOCES and Walker:[1]

4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
5. Negligent infliction of emotional distress;
6. Negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention; and
7. Violation of 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.[2]

In its prior Decision and Order, the Court dismissed the fourth cause of action against BOCES and Walker as time-barred; dismissed the seventh cause of action against BOCES for lack of plausibility; dismissed the seventh cause of action against Walker on qualified immunity grounds; and denied dismissal of the fifth and sixth claims as to both BOCES and Walker.

Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider and reverse its ruling dismissing the Seventh cause of action as to both BOCES and Walker. Defendants now seek dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety.

STANDARDS OF LAW

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54

The pertinent portion of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 states as follows:

any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). As the Southern District observed in Green v. Beer, No. 06 Civ. 4156 (KMW) (JCF), 2009 WL 3401256 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2009):

Rule 54(b) revisions should be limited to instances in which "there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice." Official Comm. of the Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003). Where there is an arguable "intervening change of controlling law, "

Id., at *2. Reconsideration is determined within the discretion of the district court. See Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Shapiro, No. Civ. 6468 (KMW) (MHD), 2009 WL 4408207, 1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2009).

Motion to Dismiss Standard [3]

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), clarified the standard to be applied to a 12(b)(6) motion:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a Plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.