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.

Eberle v. Town of Southampton

United States District Court, E.D. New York

November 27, 2013

SCOTT EBERLE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, THE SOUTHAMPTON TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES OVERTON, WILLIAM WILSON, DETECTIVE STEVEN MILLER AND UNKNOWN JOHN AND JANE DOE SUPERVISORS, DETECTIVES AND POLICE OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, Defendants

For the Plaintiff: John Joseph Nonnemacher, Esq., Of Counsel, Bader Yakitis and Nonnenmacher, New York, NY.

For the Defendants: Jeltje DeJong, Esq., Kelly E. Wright, Esq., Of Counsel, Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, NY.

OPINION

ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge.

Page 345

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff Scott Eberle (the " Plaintiff" ) commenced this action against the Defendants the Town of Southampton, the Southhampton Town Police Department, Police Chief James Overton, Police Chief William Wilson, Detective Steven Miller, and John and Jane Doe Supervisors, Detectives and Police Officers employed by the Town of Southhampton (collectively the " Defendants" ). This action arises from an incident on August 3, 2011 while the Plaintiff was in the custody of the Southampton Town Police.

As gleaned from the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts causes of action sounding in (1) assault and battery; (2) deprivation of federal constitutional rights under 42 § U.S.C. 1983; (3) failure to train, supervise, or discipline; (4) deprivation of constitutional rights under the New York State Constitution; (5) negligence; (6) negligent retention and hiring; and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory relief.

On October 16, 2012, the Defendants answered the complaint. Discovery followed.

On July 10, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay set a deadline of August 9, 2013 for any amendment of pleadings. The Plaintiff's counsel alleges that, due to a clerical error, he mistakenly diaried that date as August 29, 2013.

On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff made a letter motion, addressed to Judge Lindsay, to amend the complaint to substitute Detective Robert Stabile for Detective Steven Miller. The Plaintiff attached the proposed amended complaint containing the amended caption. On August 22, 2013, this Court directed that the Plaintiff, should he wish, file a formal motion in accordance with the Court's individual rules.

Page 346

Thereafter, on September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff formally moved pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (" Fed. R. Civ. P." ) to amend the complaint to substitute Stabile for Miller. The Plaintiff asserts that while he was previously under the impression that Miller had been involved in the alleged assault and battery, during the course of discovery the Plaintiff confirmed that Stabile and not Miller had, in fact, been involved in the underlying events. The Plaintiff suggests that he confirmed this information when a Use of Force Report, dated August 3, 2011, was marked as an exhibit during Stabile's deposition on July 3, 2013.

The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion to amend as untimely, futile, and prejudicial. The Defendants note that while their February 4, 2013 disclosures identified Stabile as the officer involved in the alleged assault and battery, the Plaintiff did not move to substitute Stabile for Miller until August 20, 2013. ...


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.