Carnelli v. Karani, 072318 FED2, 17-2930-cv

Docket Nº:17-2930-cv
Party Name:Jacob Carnelli, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adarbaad Karani, Defendant-Appellant.[**]
Attorney:FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: John J.E. Markham, II, Markham & Read, Boston, MA. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Evan Ouellette, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, Boston, MA.
Judge Panel:PRESENT: Dennis Jacobs, Christopher F. Droney, Circuit Judges, Stefan R. Underhill, District Judge.
Case Date:July 23, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Jacob Carnelli, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Adarbaad Karani, Defendant-Appellant.[**]

No. 17-2930-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

July 23, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of July, two thousand eighteen.

Appeal from an opinion and order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Reiss, J.).

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: John J.E. Markham, II, Markham & Read, Boston, MA.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Evan Ouellette, Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten, LLP, Boston, MA.

PRESENT: Dennis Jacobs, Christopher F. Droney, Circuit Judges, Stefan R. Underhill, District Judge. [*]

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the opinion and order of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Adarbaad Karani appeals from an August 21, 2017, opinion and order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Reiss, J.) denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion seeking summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity.

Prior to the action underlying this appeal, Plaintiff-Appellee Jacob Carnelli had sued Karani for injuries sustained when Karani, an off-duty Boston policeman, bounced Carnelli from a bar. Carnelli was deposed, and indicated that he had experienced homicidal thoughts toward Karani. Karani learned of that testimony from his attorney, and immediately wrote an internal memorandum to his supervisor at the Boston Police Department ("BPD"). The memo indicated that Carnelli had made homicidal threats toward Karani, and requested that the BPD provide police protection for Karani at his deposition. Karani also requested that the BPD inform Carnelli's employer, the Vermont Department of Corrections ("Vermont DOC"), about the threats. The next day, before he received a response from his supervisor, Karani himself faxed this same memo to the Vermont DOC.

Carnelli filed this suit in response, on the basis of diversity of citizenship, asserting that Karani interfered with his job at the Vermont DOC and bringing causes of action under Vermont law for tortious interference with contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In defense, Karani asserted qualified immunity under Vermont law. The district court denied qualified immunity, and Karani appealed. On appeal, he argues that he sent the memo at issue in good faith and was performing a discretionary duty within the scope of his employment, and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

At the outset, Carnelli argues that we lack jurisdiction to hear Karani's appeal since the district court rejected Karani's motion on the ground that there are disputed issues of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP