Drake v. Vill. of Lima
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 6:20-CV-06112 EAW |
| Parties | EILEEN C. DRAKE, DANIEL R. DRAKE, and LILLIAN COATS, Plaintiffs, v. THE VILLAGE OF LIMA and VILLAGE OF LIMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Plaintiffs Eileen C. Drake, Daniel R. Drake, and Lillian Coats (collectively "Plaintiffs") bring this action against defendants the Village of Lima (the "Village") and the Village of Lima Department of Public Works (the "DPW") (collectively "Defendants") relating to an incident on January 13, 2019, wherein a sewer line clog resulted in damage to their property. (Dkt. 1). Defendants now seek dismissal of the majority of Plaintiffs' claims, on a variety of legal bases. (Dkt. 23). For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' federal causes of action are subject to dismissal. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state claw claims, which are remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, Livingston County.
The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' amended complaint. (Dkt. 15). As required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats Plaintiffs' factual allegations as true.
Plaintiffs Eileen C. Drake ("E. Drake") and Daniel R. Drake ("D. Drake") are the owners of 7398 East Main Street, Lima, New York (the "Property"), which they have resided at as a single-family dwelling since 2010. (Dkt. 15 at ¶¶ 4-6). Plaintiff Lillian Coats ("Coats") is E. Drake's mother, and resided at the Property from 2015 until January 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 50).
The Property is located in the Village and is connected by a lateral sewage line owned by Plaintiffs (the "Lateral Line") to a main sewer line owned, operated, maintained, and designed by Defendants (the "Sewer Line"). (Id. at ¶¶ 11-13).
On January 13, 2019, at approximately 5:30 p.m., a clog in the Sewer Line caused backflow to enter the Property. (Id. at ¶ 14). E. Drake found Coats standing in raw sewage. (Id. at ¶ 17). Numerous showers and sink drains on the Property overflowed with raw sewage, and the raw sewage leaked "through the floorboards of the first floor and into the basement, landing on the furnace, and slow[ly] filling the basement." (Id. at ¶¶ 16, 18). Eventually, the raw sewage leaking into the basement damaged the furnace and caused it to smoke. (Id. at ¶ 21).
Plaintiffs called 911, but were informed that emergency services could not assist them with raw sewage. (Id. at 19-20). D. Drake "removed the clean out-plug from the sewer plumbing in the basement to relevel the pressure in the pipes," whereupon the raw sewage "ceased to overflow from the toilets and drains and began to fill up the basement of the House." (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23). "When the raw sewage stopped flowing into the basement, there was approximately 3 to 4 feet of raw sewage and debris covering the floor of the basement." (Id. at ¶ 24).
Having smelled the smoke from the furnace, Plaintiffs called 911 a second time, and the Lima Fire Department (the "LFD") was dispatched. (Id. at ¶ 25). The LFD arrived and cut electric power to Plaintiffs' house. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-27). D. Drake was examined by emergency medical technicians, as the smell of raw sewage had caused him to feel faint. (Id. at ¶ 26).
Roughly 20 minutes after the backflow had begun, the superintendent of the DPW arrived at the Property. (Id. at ¶ 28). The superintendent informed Plaintiffs that the backflow had been "caused by a clog in the Sewer Line approximately 5 to 6 feet from the Lateral Line." (Id. at ¶ 29). The clog in turn was caused by "a buildup of grease and baby wipes in the Sewer Line." (Id. at ¶ 30). "There was also a physical object clogging the Sewer Line[.]" (Id. at ¶ 32). The superintendent told Plaintiffs that the clog was in the Sewer Line and not in their Lateral Line. (Id. at ¶ 33).
The LFD instructed Plaintiffs to evacuate the Property, as it was not safe to enter or reside there. (Id. at ¶ 34). E. Drake and D. Drake were unable to reside on the Property for three and a half months. (Id. at ¶ 36). Coats "had to be removed to reside at a senior living community, and now can no longer be cared for by her daughter." (Id. at ¶ 53).
The backflow incident caused "extensive damages." (Id. at ¶ 61). "Both the basement and the first floor of the House required extensive remediation," the furnace and the hot water tank had to be replaced, and Plaintiffs "lost numerous personal belongings . . ., including a love seat, numerous mattresses and box springs, pillows and blankets, bookshelf, numerous chairs, couch, extended dining set with six chairs, lamp, area rugs,two Lazy Boy recliners, Christmas décor, fish aquarium, fish and equipment, vases, and numerous articles of clothing." (Id. at ¶¶ 64, 70, 83).
Plaintiffs' homeowner's insurance denied coverage for these damages (id. at ¶¶ 73-76), and Defendants' insurer sent Plaintiffs a letter "advising that Defendants were not responsible for the Incident, but also advis[ing] that a claim for the Incident would be paid if Defendants were negligent" (id. at ¶ 38). The Village's mayor sent a letter on January 28, 2019, taking the position that the backflow had been caused by "an issue with Plaintiffs' Lateral Line" and denying any responsibility on the part of Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-40).
Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons with notice in New York State Supreme Court, Livingston County, on January 13, 2020. (Dkt. 15 at ¶ 89). Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 20, 2020. (Dkt. 1). The amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, was filed on May 6, 2020. (Dkt. 15).
Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on June 5, 2020. (Dkt. 23). Plaintiffs filed their response on June 26, 2020 (Dkt. 25), and Defendants filed their reply on July 14, 2020 (Dkt. 28).
Defendants seek dismissal of all claims brought by Coats, on the basis that she lacks standing. "It is well established that before a federal court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must establish the requisite standing to sue." Ross ex rel. Dunham v. Lantz, 408 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2005)(citation and alteration omitted); see also Egan v. Loc. 363, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers' Union, No. 18-CV-4656 (NSR), 2021 WL 1092355, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021) .
As the Supreme Court has explained, Town of Chester v. Laroe Ests., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017) (quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserts seven causes of action, of which the first six arise under state law. (Dkt. 15). For reasons set forth below, the Court does not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' state court claims, but instead declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands them to state court. Accordingly, the Court has limited its standing inquiry to Plaintiffs' federal claims.
Plaintiffs' federal claims are found in their seventh cause of action, which is asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that "Defendants violated Plaintiffs' right to equal protection, and right to be free from a taking without just compensation. . . ." (Id. at ¶ 140). To establish standing under federal law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) an injury in fact, meaning "an invasion of a legally protected interest"; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling. Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U.S. 656, 663 (1993).
Here, without differentiating between the various claims asserted by Plaintiffs, Defendants argue generally that Coats lacks standing because she was not an owner of theProperty, and thus did not suffer a cognizable injury in fact. (Dkt. 23-1 at 27-29). Defendants' standing argument lacks merit as to Plaintiffs' federal claims. Plaintiffs' amended complaint is clear that it was not only the Property that was damaged as a result of the backflow, but also significant personal property contained therein. (Dkt. 15 at ¶ 83). The amended complaint further specifically alleges that Coats was the owner of some of this personal property. (Id. at ¶ 55 ()). The loss of personal property is a sufficient injury in fact to afford Coats standing for her federal claims, and Defendants have cited no cases to the contrary. See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 710 F.3d 71, 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (); Miller v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 994 F. Supp. 2d 542, 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (). The Court will not dismiss Coats' federal claims for lack of standing.
Having resolved the threshold standing issue as to Plaintiffs' federal claims, the Court turns to the merits. Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that they are not plausibly alleged. (Dkt. 23-1 at 7-17). The Court agrees, for the reasons that follow.
"In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in thecomplaint." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial