Doe v. Del. State Police

• Decision Date: 04 April 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–CV–3003 (KMK).
• Citation: 939 F.Supp.2d 313
• Parties: John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELAWARE STATE POLICE, and Seaford Police Department, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

939 F.Supp.2d 313

John DOE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DELAWARE STATE POLICE, and Seaford Police Department, Defendants.

Case No. 10–CV–3003 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 4, 2013.

Rick S. Cowle, Esq., Carmel, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Ilona Kirshon, Esq., Michael F. McTaggart, Esq., Deputy Attorneys General, State of Delaware, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant Delaware State Police.

Thomas K. Moore, Esq., White Plains, NY, for Defendant Seaford Police Department.

OPINION AND ORDER AMENDED VERSION¹

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs John Doe, Jane Doe, and Jack Doe (“Plaintiffs”), residents of New York, bring this action against Defendants Delaware State Police (“DSP”) and Seaford Police Department (“Seaford PD”) (collectively “Defendants”) asserting common law claims of “negligence per se,” “gross and wanton negligence,” and “loss of reputation, companionship and services.” (Verified Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 60, 63, 67, 71.) The Complaint in this case and all other submissions were sealed pursuant to an order of Judge Cathy Seibel dated April 7, 2010, granting Doe leave to file the Complaint and all subsequent pleadings and documents under seal. Later, by Order dated March 13, 2013, the Court ordered the case be unsealed; however, Plaintiffs' names and a few other details that may lead to their identification have been redacted from the version of this Opinion originally filed under seal.

Defendants have moved to dismiss. The motions are granted in large part, though, as explained below, Plaintiffs have the option of accepting a transfer to the District of Delaware in lieu of the dismissal of the Seaford PD.

I. Background

The Complaint alleges the following facts, accepted as true for the purpose of deciding these motions. In August 2000, John Doe, then age sixteen, pled guilty in Delaware to a charge of unlawful sexual contact in the third degree after being accused of inappropriately touching a seventeen-year-old girl. (Compl. ¶¶ 13–14.) Doe was thereafter required to register as a sex offender in his then—home state of Delaware. ( Id. ¶¶ 15–16.) In his registration, Doe listed various addresses and a phone number at which he could be found, including two addresses in the City of Seaford, Delaware (“Seaford”). ( Id. ¶ 17.) Doe's Delaware conviction was expunged by order of the Family Court of Delaware on December 10, 2009. ( Id. ¶ 46; Ex. 3.)

In September 2008, before expungement of the conviction, an officer of the DSP made a random check for Doe's whereabouts. The officer, for an unknown reason, went to an apartment in Seaford that was not listed on Doe's sex offender registration and at which Doe alleges he had never lived. ( Id. ¶¶ 19–20, 26.) Finding the apartment vacant, the officer informed the Seaford PD, which obtained an Adult Complaint and Warrant (the “Delaware warrant”) against Doe from the Delaware Justice of the Peace Court on October 1, 2008. ( Id. ¶¶ 21, 24–25; Ex. 1.) The Delaware warrant authorized Doe's arrest for failing to re-register as a sex offender after a change of address. ( Id. Ex. 1, at 3.) Doe alleges that neither the DSP nor Seaford PD attempted to contact him at the phone number or any of the Delaware addresses he had listed on his sex offender registration, even though this information was available to Defendants. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 27–32.)

Doe later moved from Delaware to New York and married Plaintiff Jane Doe. ( Id. ¶¶ 35–36.) On September 15, 2009, John Doe was pulled over for a traffic violation in New Castle, New York; the Delaware warrant was discovered during the ensuing background check, and Doe was arrested and detained in Westchester County. ( Id. ¶¶ 37–38.) Delaware did not seek Doe's extradition and he was released on September 21, 2009. ( Id. ¶ 41.) News of Doe's arrest reached a local news outlet. ( Id. ¶¶ 43–44; Ex. 2.) Doe alleges that viewers of the outlet's website posted “vicious” comments about the story, and that the publicity surrounding his arrest led him and his family to suffer harassment by their neighbors, forcing the family to move. ( Id. ¶¶ 44–45.)

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in this case, asserting two negligence claims against Defendants, both based on the allegations that Defendants searched for Doe at the wrong address, failed to confirm his whereabouts at the correct addresses, and caused the Delaware warrant to be issued based on false information. ( Id. ¶¶ 56, 63.) Plaintiffs allege that these acts constituted “wanton and gross negligence, carelessness and recklessness,” ( id. ¶ 63), and were also negligent per se because they were allegedly done “in violation of” unspecified “local and State laws, police procedures, rules and ordinances,” ( id. ¶ 57.) The Complaint also contains two claims for “loss of reputation, companionship and services,” asserted by Plaintiffs Jane and Jack Doe, the couple's minor son, respectively. ( Id. ¶¶ 67–72.) Plaintiffs seek $35,000,000 in compensatory, “exemplary,” and punitive damages on the negligence claims, and $150,000 each on the “loss of reputation” claims. ( Id. ¶ 72.)

II. Discussion

DSP seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (3). In its motion, DSP contends that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against it because DSP is protected by Delaware's state sovereignimmunity; (2) venue is improper in this District; and (3) DSP is not subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction. (Def. Del. State Police's Mem. of Law in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss (“DSP's Mem.”) 2, 5–7, 9–11; Def. Del. State Police's Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss (“DSP's Reply”) 4–6.) Seaford PD joins DSP's arguments regarding venue and personal jurisdiction, and in addition contends that the case should be transferred to Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and that it has immunity from Plaintiffs' claims under Delaware law. (Def. Seaford Police Dep't's Mem. of L. in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss (“Seaford Mem.”) unnumbered 8–11.) Plaintiffs oppose the motions and seek an order from the Court “[g]rant[ing] Summary Judgment ‘Sua Sponte’ in the Plaintiffs' favor.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pls.' Ans. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss & Request to Change Venue (“Pls.' Mem.”) 23.)

A. Standard of Review

“[A] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal jurisdiction).” Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 93–102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). Although a court is free to “choose among threshold grounds” for dismissing an action so long as none involve “a judgment on the merits,” id. at 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184 (internal quotation marks omitted), “the proper course” is to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction if the “court can readily determine that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant,” id. at 436, 127 S.Ct. 1184;see also Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 588, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (holding that “[w]here ... a district court has before it a straightforward personal jurisdiction issue ... and [an] alleged defect in subject-matter jurisdiction rais[ing] a difficult and novel question,” the court has discretion to “turn[ ] directly to personal jurisdiction”). Under the circumstances of this case, the Court will address DSP's objections to subject matter jurisdiction and then address personal jurisdiction. Consideration of these two issues alone is sufficient to decide Defendants' motions.

If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim, the claim must be dismissed as the court “lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187, 188 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250 (2d Cir.2008) (“If a court perceives at any stage of the proceedings that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it must take proper notice of the defect by dismissing the action.”). “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc., 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir.2005). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the Court “take[s] all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of [the] plaintiff.” NRDC v. Johnson, 461 F.3d 164, 171 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.” Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd,561 U.S. 247, 130 S.Ct. 2869, 177 L.Ed.2d 535 (2010). “In resolving a motion ... under Rule 12(b)(1) a district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings,” id., but it “may not rely on conclusory or hearsay statements contained in” such evidence, J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir.2004).

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant. See Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir.2010). On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, the plaintiff carries this burden by making a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists. Id. at 34–35;see also S. New England Tel. Co. v. Global NAPs Inc., 624 F.3d 123, 138 (2d Cir.2010) (“ SNET” ). “This showing may be made through the plaintiff's own affidavits and supporting materials, containing an averment of facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” SNET, 624 F.3d at 138 (...