Estate of Keenan v. Hoffman-Rosenfeld

• Decision Date: 29 July 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 16-cv-0149 (SFJ)(AYS)
• Parties: The Estate of LANA KEENAN, PADRAIG KEENAN, SARA KEENEN, PIERCE KEENAN, a minor child, and DAMIEN KEENAN, a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. DR. JAMIE HOFFMAN-ROSENFELD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

The Estate of LANA KEENAN, PADRAIG KEENAN, SARA KEENEN,PIERCE KEENAN, a minor child, and DAMIEN KEENAN, a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. DR. JAMIE HOFFMAN-ROSENFELD, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-0149 (SFJ)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 29, 2019

Memorandum and Order

(re: County Defendants)

FEUERSTEIN, S., Senior District Judge:

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs the Estate of Lana Keenan ("Lana"), Padraig Keenan ("Padraig" or "Father"), Sara Keenan ("Sara" or "Mother"; together with Padraig or Father, the "Parents"), Pierce Keenan ("Pierce"), and Damien Keenan ("Damien"; together with Pierce, the "Brothers"; collectively, with Lana and the Parents, the "Plaintiffs") commenced this action against Defendants the County of Suffolk (the "County"), Dennis Nowak as the Director of Suffolk County Child Protective Services ("Nowak"), John O'Neill as the Chief Executive of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services ("O'Neill"), Child Protective Services of Suffolk County ("CPS"),¹ the Suffolk County Department of Social Services ("DSS"),² the Suffolk CountyAttorney's Office³ (the "County AO"), CPS worker Colleen Pidel ("Pidel"), CPS worker Edward Encarnacion ("Encarnacion"), and CPS worker Maureen Peterson ("Peterson") (hereafter, collectively, the "County Defendants"⁴), among other defendants, alleging, inter alia, various civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Complaint (ECF No. 1); Amended Complaint (ECF No. 108).) Presently before the Court is the County Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment in their favor on all of Plaintiffs' claims (hereafter, the "Summary Judgment Motion") (see ECF No. 142; see also Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 142-16) (hereafter, "Support Memo")), which Plaintiff opposes (hereafter, "Opposition" or "Opp'n") (see ECF Nos. 143, 143-1 (Mem. In Opp'n)). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.

II. Background

A. Factual Background

1. Generally and for Context⁵

This case emanates "out of the tragic and untimely death" of Lana, the three-month old daughter of the Parents and sister to the Brothers. (Support Memo at 1.)

Lana was hospitalized on January 3, 2014 and passed away on February 6, 2014 at defendant Cohen Children's Medical Center. According to the [C]omplaint, while Lana was hospitalized, defendant Dr. Jamie Hoffman-Rosenfeld ("Dr Hoffman-Rosenfeld") made an intentionally false report to defendant [CPS] to the effect that Lana had been abused and/or neglected by [her P]arents. Plaintiffs aver that "[b]ased upon defendant [Dr.] Hoffman-Rosenfeld's intentionally false and knowingly misleading statements, Family Court proceedings were launched and continued against [the Parents]" by [CPS] workers, defendants Pidel, Encarnacion and Peterson . . .

(Support Memo at 1-2 (citing Complaint, ¶¶30, 31, 33, 120).) "Plaintiffs do not claim to have been criminally prosecuted. The so called 'prosecution' to which they refer is the Family Court proceeding allegedly fomented by Dr. Hoffman-Rosenfeld." (Id. at 2, note 3.)

2. Relevant Background Regarding the County Defendants⁶

More specifically, on January 9, 2014, CPS sought the temporary removal of Lana, Pierce and Damien from their Parents; to that end, CPS worker Peterson signed and filed applications for pre-Petition temporary removal of the children (hereafter, the "Pre-Petitions"). (See County's 56.1 Statement, ¶¶1, 3; cf., Plaintiffs' 56.1 Statement, (unnumbered⁷) ¶12.) The Parents, each represented by counsel, appeared in Family Court in response to the Pre-Petitions. (See id. at ¶4.) Upon advice of counsel, Sara consented to giving temporary custody of Pierce and Damien to her parents pending the commencement of Child Protective Petitions and a hearing thereupon. (See id. at ¶5.)

On January 13, 2014, another CPS worker, Joy DeCordova, signed Child Protective Petitions on behalf of the Lana and the Brothers alleging child abuse and negligence by the Parents, with the child abuse of Lana alleged to be severe (hereafter, the "Petitions"). (See id. at ¶6; cf., Plaintiffs' 56.1 Statement, (unnumbered) ¶13 ; cf., Plaintiffs' 56.1 Statement, [13] ("On January 13, 2014, a petition alleging abuse was filed in Family Court alleging that Lana sustained widespread bleeding in her brain , spinal cord injury, and injuries to her neck ligamentsand further, that the injuries are those as seen when shaking an infant.").) The filing of the Petitions with Family Court commenced protective proceedings against the Parents (hereafter, "Protective Proceedings"). (See id. at ¶8.) On January 14, 2014, "Family Court entered an Order Directing Temporary Removal of Child[ren,] continuing Pierce . . . and Damien . . . in the custody of Sara's parents. Because Lana was hospitalized at that time, she was place in the custody of the Suffolk County Commissioner of Social Services." (Id. at ¶9 (internal citation omitted).) A January 31, 2014 Family Court order was issued continuing this custodial arrangement. (See id. at ¶10.) On August 7, 2014, the Family Court issued an "Order On Application For Return of Child[ren] Temporarily Removed From Home" pursuant to which Pierce and Damien were permitted to be returned to Father, but prohibiting Mother from returning to the family home. (See id. at ¶11.)

Thereafter, on November 6, 2014 and as part of the Protective Proceedings, the Family Court conducted a trial on the Petitions (see Amended Complaint, ¶171); it issued its Decision and Order on January 16, 2015, (hereafter, "Family Court Order")(see Ex. J, attached to County's 56.1 Statement). "Based on all the credible evidence produced at trial," the Family Court judge found the County had failed "to establish by a preponderance of the evidence" that Lana was an abused, severely abused or neglected child" or that the Brothers were "derivatively abused or neglected." (Ex. J at 25-26; see also County's 56.1 Statement, ¶12; cf., Plaintiffs' 56.1 Statement, (unnumbered) ¶16.)

Sometime thereafter and pursuant to N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-e, Plaintiffs filed Notices of Claim with the County. (See County's 56.1 Statement, ¶13.) Receipt of those Claims prompted the County to issue two Notices of Municipal Hearings pursuant to N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-h, directing the Parents to each appear for a hearing on August 6, 2015.(See id. at ¶¶13-14.) At the Parents' request, the August 6, 2015 § 50-h hearings were adjourned to October 8, 2015. (See id. at ¶16.) Despite clear and conspicuous notice that it was a claimant's responsibility to confirm attendance at a § 50-h hearing and to reschedule an unconfirmed hearing date (see id. at ¶15), neither of the Parents "appeared at their § 50-h hearing on the adjourn date of October 8, 2015. Nor did they or their counsel [sic] office request an adjournment." (Id. at ¶17; see also id. at ¶18 ("At no time after October 8, 2015 did Sara or Padraig ever appear for the [sic] their hearings, nor was any attempt made by them or on their behalf to reschedule the hearings.").)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 12, 2016 by filing their original Complaint (see ECF No. 1); the case was originally assigned to District Judge Wexler (see ECF No. 1-1.) Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the County Defendants moved to dismiss the case (see ECF No. 35); they also moved for a stay of discovery (see ECF No. 39; see also ECF No. 59), which motion was denied. (See June 2, 2016 Minute Entry (ECF No. 53).) As various discovery disputes were being brought before the Court, Plaintiffs moved to amend their Complaint (see ECF No. 83), which the County Defendants opposed (see ECF No. 89). While the County Defendants' dismissal motion and Plaintiffs' amendment motion were pending, Judge Wexler recused himself from the case, which was randomly reassigned to the undersigned. (See Case Docket, Dec. 13, 2016 ELECTRONIC ORDER OF RECUSAL). Thereafter, this Court scheduled a December 19, 2016 Status Conference. (See Case Docket, Dec. 14, 2016 NOTICE of Hearing).

At the December 19th Status Conference, among other things, this Court terminated all pending dismissal motions with leave to refile as summary judgment motions upon close ofdiscovery; a September 11, 2017 discovery deadline was set. (See Case Docket, Dec. 19, 2017 Minute Order (ECF No. 96).) Thereafter, on March 14, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and directing Plaintiffs' counsel "to serve and file the amended complaint forthwith." (Case Docket, Mar. 14, 2017 ELECTRONIC ORDER (AYS).) On March 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint (see ECF No. 108) raising numerous claims, to wit:

1. pursuant to § 1983, the malicious prosecution of Parents by the CPS workers for their purported commencement and continuance of the Protective Proceedings (see Count 1);

2. pursuant to § 1983, in the absence of probable cause, the abuse of process by CPS and DSS workers for their continuance of the Protective Proceedings (see Count 2);

3. pursuant to § 1983, a conspiracy to permit and condone the use of false and misleading testimony against the Parents during the Protective Proceedings, the use of which interfered with the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, i.e., freedom of association and the fundamental rights inherent in the familial relationship (see Count 3);

4. pursuant to § 1983, the intentional violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to familial association rights because of Lana's and the Brothers' removal from their parents' custody (see Count 4);

5. pursuant to § 1983, a Monell claim based on the alleged adopted custom and practice of CPS and DSS of having private citizens perform their investigative work, upon which CPS and DSS rely, and which resulted in constitutional injury (see Count 5); and

6. pendent state law claims for false imprisonment, loss of

...