Ciacciarella v. Bronko

• Decision Date: 28 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. 3:07cv1241 (MRK).,3:07cv1241 (MRK).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Anne CIACCIARELLA, Plaintiff, v. Michael BRONKO, Kevin Delgobbo, Len Greene, Donald Zehnder, Jr., Defendants.

534 F.Supp.2d 276

Anne CIACCIARELLA, Plaintiff, v. Michael BRONKO, Kevin Delgobbo, Len Greene, Donald Zehnder, Jr., Defendants.

No. 3:07cv1241 (MRK).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

January 28, 2008.

Norman A. Pattis, Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis, LLC, Bethany, CT, for Plaintiff.

James Newhall Tallberg, Karsten, Dorman & Tallberg LLC, West Hartford, CT, Robert S. Kolesnik, Kolesnik & Norris, Waterbury, CT, Christine Anne Robinson, Richard A. O'Connor, Sachner & O'Connor, Middlebury, CT, for Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER

MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Len Greene and Kevin DelGobbo's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 32] the Amended Complaint [doc. # 24] against them. At the risk of over-simplification, Ms. Ciacciarella's claims are founded on her assertion that Naugatuck Mayor Bronko directed Mr. Zehnder, Naugatuck's part-time town counsel, to fire Ms. Ciacciarella from her paralegal position in Mr. Zehnder's law office because of Ms. Ciacciarella's support for Mayor Bronko's opponent and, because of her political affiliation. According to Ms. Ciacciarella, Mr. Zehnder was given an ultimatum and told that he would lose his position as town counsel if he did not fire Ms. Ciacciarella. Ms. Ciaceiarella asserts her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under state law.

Messrs. Greene and DelGobbo, both of whom are State Representatives to the General Assembly, move to dismiss the § 1983 claims against them on the grounds that they are not state actors and that. Ms. Ciacciarella has not sufficiently pleaded a joint undertaking or enterprise between them and the Mayor. They also argue that because Ms. Ciacciarella is not a public employee, she cannot sue under the First Amendment for losing her private sector jab, even if — as she alleges — the loss of the job was Politically motivated and directed by the Mayor. Finally,' they ask this Court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Ciacciarella's state law claims.

On a motion to dismiss, the Court must "accept as true all factual statements alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Ms. Ciacciarella. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2007); see, e.g., Desiano v. Warner-Ldmbert Co., 326 F.3d 339, 347 (2d Cir.2003). The Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007): has raised "[c]onsiderable uncertainty concerning the standard for assessing the adequacy of pleadings," lqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir.2007), on a motion to dismiss under Rifle 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Second Circuit has held that Twombly requires a "flexible `plausibility standard,' which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible." Id. at 157-58 (quoting Twombly, ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S.Ct. at 1968). Nevertheless, even after Igbal and Twombly, the issue on a motion to dismiss "is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Desiano, 326 F.3d at 347 (quotation marks omitted); see Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002).

Here, the Amended Complaint [doc. # 24], alleges that each defendant "acted in concert with one another for the express purpose [of] preventing the plaintiff from working in defendant Zehnder's law office" (¶ 11); that the "object of the conspiracy [among the defendants] was to prevent the plaintiff, 4 Democrat, from enjoying the spoils of a Republican administration" (¶ 11); that "[i]n a series of meetings between May 7, 2007 and May 23, 2007, defendants Bronko, DelGobbo and. Greene concluded that the plaintiffs employment with defendant Zehnder would make it impossible for defendant Zehnder to serve as town counsel" (¶ 17); and that "[t]he three defendants agreed that defendant Zehnder would be given an ultimatum either to fire the plaintiff or lose his position as town counsel" (¶ 17).

These allegations of conspiracy and joint activity among Mayor Bronko and Messrs. DelGobbo and Greene are sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) ("[O]ur precedents indicate that a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."); Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 308, 313 (2d Cir. 2003) (state action may properly be found "where the private actor `operates as a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents'") (quoting Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 296, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001)); Colon v. Town of West Hartford, No. 3:00cv168(AHN), 2001 WL 45464, at *7 (D.Conn. Jan. 5, 2001) ("A private party involved in a conspiracy with state actors can be liable under § 1983, but to sustain such a claim, the plaintiff must allege facts showing an...