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.

Ratner v. Robinson

United States District Court, E.D. New York

September 16, 2014

CARY RATNER, Plaintiff,
v.
LINDA ROBINSON, MITCHELL SHAPIRO, COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE BRETT NORDMAN, in his individual and official capacity, DETECTIVES JOHN DOE 1-10, in their official and individual capacities, NASSAU COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants.

Cary Ratner, pro se, East Hills, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mitchell M. Shapiro, Esq., Law Offices of Michael V. Devine, Smithtown, NY, for Defendants, Linda Robinson.

Mitchell Shapiro, pro se, Smithtown, NY, Mitchell Shapiro.

Thomas Lai, Esq., Nassau County Attorney Office, Mineola, NY, County Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Cary Ratner ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against defendants Linda Robinson ("Robinson") and Mitchell Shapiro ("Shapiro"), and Nassau County, the Nassau County Police Department, Detective Brett Nordman, and the Nassau County District Attorney's Office (collectively, the "County Defendants"), asserting claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as related state law claims. Robinson and Shapiro move for judgment on the pleadings. (Docket Entries 8 & 9.) Plaintiff has opposed and moves for leave to file an amended opposition to Shapiro's and Robinson's motions. (Docket Entry 32.)

For the following reasons, Robinson's and Shapiro's motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended opposition is DENIED AS MOOT.

BACKGROUND[1]

This action arises out of Plaintiff's arrest on January 15, 2013. Plaintiff claims that he was arrested on false stalking charges filed by Robinson, his son's ex-motherin-law. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 44.) He claims that Robinson falsely accused him "in an attempt to punish [him] for seeking recourse in New York State Supreme Court and Family Court for defending himself against false accusations by" Robinson. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that Shapiro, who is Robinson's attorney, is a former detective and "counsel to a Police Fraternal organization, " and that he "used his contacts and influence to affect this punishment." (Compl. ¶ 3.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Robinson and Shapiro for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as negligence, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and fraud under New York state law. Plaintiff also brings these claims against the County Defendants, with the exception of the state law fraud claim.

Shapiro and Robinson filed motions for judgment on the pleadings on November 26, 2013 and December 4, 2013, respectively. (Docket Entries 8 & 9.) Plaintiff has opposed and moved for leave to file an amended opposition to Shapiro's and Robinson's motions. (Docket Entry 32.) These motions are currently pending before the Court.

DISCUSSION

The Court will first set forth the applicable legal standard before turning to the motions more specifically.

I. Legal Standard

The standard for evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b). See Karedes v. Ackerley Grp., Inc., 423 F.3d 107, 113 (2d Cir. 2005). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court applies a "plausibility standard, " which is guided by "[t]wo working principles." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); accord Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009). First, although the Court must accept all allegations as true, this "tenet" is "inapplicable to legal conclusions;" thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; accord Harris, 572 F.3d at 72. Second, only complaints that state a "plausible claim for relief" can survive a ...


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.