Futia v. Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Legislators
| Decision Date | 06 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 20 CV 1237 (VB) |
| Parties | ANTHONY FUTIA, JR., and ROBERT L. SCHULZ, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS; BEN BOYKIN, Chairman; HARRISON TOWN BOARD; and RON BELMONT, Supervisor, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Anthony Futia, Jr., and Robert L. Schulz, proceeding pro se, bring this action against defendants Westchester County Board of Legislators ("WCBOL"), WCBOL Chairman Ben Boykin, the Harrison Town ("Town") Board, and Town Supervisor Ron Belmont, alleging violations of the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, the New York State Constitution, and other state and local laws.
Now pending are defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Docs. ##11, 15).
For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.
For the purpose of ruling on the motions to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, and draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, as summarized below.1
Plaintiffs are citizens of New York. At all relevant times, Futia resided in North White Plains, within Westchester County, and Schulz resided in Queensbury, within Warren County.
In 2000, WCBOL enacted Local Law ("L.L.") 24-2000, which created the Compensation Advisory Board ("CAB"). CAB's stated functions include advising WCBOL whether any changes or adjustments to the compensation paid to members of WCBOL is warranted, and submitting recommendations to WCBOL regarding same. Pursuant to L.L. 24-2000, CAB is to be comprised of seven members appointed by WCBOL in even-numbered years.
Every two years, a new slate of WCBOL members is elected by Westchester County voters. On November 5, 2019, seventeen individuals were elected to WCBOL for the 2020-2021 term.
On November 18, 2019, WCBOL passed two resolutions scheduling a public hearing to discuss two pieces of proposed legislation: L.L. 12292-2019, to "provide for payments of increased compensation for officers appointed for a fixed term and elective officers during their term of office" (Doc. #1 ("Compl.") ¶ 20), and L.L. 12294-2019, to increase compensation of the "Members of [WCBOL]." (Id.). However, plaintiffs allege WCBOL did not appoint anymembers to CAB in 2018, and thus CAB was not convened in 2018 or 2019. For this reason, plaintiffs allege CAB did not advise WCBOL in 2019 whether any changes or adjustments to the compensation paid to members of WCBOL was warranted, and therefore did not recommend to WCBOL compensation adjustments for the 2020-2021 term.
On December 3, 2019, at the scheduled public hearing, Futia spoke out against the proposed legislation.
On December 9, 2019, WCBOL passed the legislation. L.L. 12292-2019 made effective salary increases for certain appointed officers and certain elected officers. L.L. 12294-2019, which took effect January 1, 2020—the start of the next term—increased WCBOL members' salaries from $49,200 to $75,000.
On January 6, 2020, plaintiffs served WCBOL with a petition, alleging violations of federal and state law in connection with the enactment of the above legislation. (Doc. #2 at ECF 23-25).2 The petition demanded WCBOL either repeal the legislation or respond to plaintiffs' complaints. WCBOL did neither.
On November 5, 2019, the Town held its general election for the 2020-2021 term. Supervisor Belmont was re-elected, and four other individuals were elected to the Town Board. Supervisor Belmont serves as the fifth and final member of the Town Board.
On November 7, 2019, Supervisor Belmont released the proposed Town budget for 2020, which proposed the same salary for his position as he was paid in 2019. But on November 20, 2019, Supervisor Belmont allegedly updated the proposed budget to include a nearly $30,000pay increase for his position. On December 5, 2019, the five-member Town Board unanimously approved the proposed Town Budget, which included the Supervisor's salary increase.
On January 6, 2020, plaintiffs served the Town Board with a petition, alleging violations of federal and state law in connection with the Town Board's approval of Supervisor Belmont's salary increase. (Doc. #2 at ECF 40-41). The petition demanded the Town Board repeal and amend the Town budget, or otherwise respond to the petition. The Town Board did not respond to the petition, or repeal and amend the budget.
Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action: that (i) WCBOL and Chairman Boykin violated L.L. 24-2000 by increasing WCBOL member compensation without first obtaining an advisory opinion from CAB; (ii) L.L. 12294-2019 is inconsistent with and violates the New York State Constitution; (iii) L.L. 12292-2019 is inconsistent with and violates the New York State Constitution; (iv) WCBOL and Chairman Boykin violated the New York State Constitution by passing the above legislation; (v) the Town's 2020 budget is inconsistent with and violates the New York State Constitution; (vi) the Town Board and Supervisor Belmont violated the New York State Constitution by approving the 2020 budget; (vii) all defendants violated the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (viii) all defendants violated the First Amendment by failing to respond to plaintiffs' petitions for redress; and (ix) all defendants violated Section 801.2 of the New York Education Law.
"[F]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack the power to disregard such limits as have been imposed by the Constitution or Congress." Durant, Nichols, Houston,Hodgson & Cortese-Costa, P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2009).3 "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2011). A court lacks the judicial power to hear a party's claims when the party does not have standing. Hillside Metro Assocs., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 747 F.3d 44, 48 (2d Cir. 2014). The party invoking the Court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that jurisdiction exists. Broidy Capital Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 443 (2d Cir. 2019).
When deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists at the pleading stage, the Court "must accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint." Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2009). "However, argumentative inferences favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction should not be drawn." Buday v. N.Y. Yankees P'ship, 486 F. App'x 894, 895 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). When a factual challenge to the Court's jurisdiction has been raised, "the court may resolve [any] disputed jurisdictional fact issues by referring to evidence outside of the pleadings." Zappia Middle E. Constr. Co. v. Emirate of Abu Dhabi, 215 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2000).
When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on other grounds, the court should resolve the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first. Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir. 1990).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court evaluates the sufficiency of the operative complaint under the "two-pronged approach" articulated by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). First, a plaintiff's legal conclusions and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements," are not entitled to the assumption of truth and are thus not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at 678; Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir. 2010). Second, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the allegations in the complaint must meet a standard of "plausibility." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In considering a motion to dismiss, "a district court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010).
The Court must liberally construe submissions of pro se litigants and interpret them "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). "Even in a pro se case, however, . . . threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010). Nor may the Court "invent factual allegations" a plaintiff has not pleaded. Id.
Defendants argue plaintiffs' claims against Chairman Boykin should be dismissed on grounds of legislative immunity and qualified immunity, and plaintiffs' claims against Supervisor Belmont should be dismissed as duplicative of claims asserted against the Town Board. In their opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs state they did not "inten[d] to include Ben Boykin and Ron Belmont as additional defendants, separate from the named...
To continue reading
Request your trial