Lamberty v. Conn. State Police Union

Decision Date26 March 2021
Docket NumberNo. 3:15-cv-00378 (VAB),3:15-cv-00378 (VAB)
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesMARC LAMBERTY, JOSEPH MERCER, CARSON KONOW, and COLLIN KONOW, Plaintiffs, v. CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE UNION, KEVIN LEMBO, Comptroller, State of Connecticut, MELISSA McCAW, Secretary of Office of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut, and SANDRA FAE BROWN-BREWTON, Undersecretary of Labor Relations for the Office of Labor Relations, State of Connecticut, Defendants.
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS

Current and former Connecticut state troopers Marc Lamberty, Joseph Mercer, Carson Konow, and Collin Konow ("Plaintiffs") sued the Connecticut State Police Union (the "State Police Union" or "Union"), Kevin Lembo, Benjamin Barnes, Lisa Grasso Egan,1 and Sandra Fae Brown-Brewton (collectively, the "State Defendants," and together with the State Police Union, "Defendants"). Compl., ECF No. 1 (Mar. 14, 2015). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants injured them by deducting "agency fees" from their pay without providing pre-collection notice and procedural safeguards that had been, at that time, articulated by the United States Supreme Court,in violation of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id.

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME, overturning Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) and holding that any state withholding of fair share fees from public employees covered by collective bargaining agreements was impermissible under the First Amendment. See Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).

On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no longer any dispute of material fact in light of the holding in Janus. Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 162 (Aug. 9, 2018) ("Pls.' MSJ"). On August 30, 2018, the State Defendants and State Police Union filed separate oppositions to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, both arguing that the case should be dismissed as moot. See State Defs.' Mem. of L. in Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 170 (Aug. 30, 2018) ("State Defs.' MSJ Opp'n"); Obj. to Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 171 (Aug. 30, 2018) ("Union MSJ Opp'n").

On October 19, 2018, the Court concluded that because Janus had resolved the question of whether public sector unions could collect agency fees, and Defendants did not dispute that the law of the land had changed and ended their collection of agency fees, and agreed to return all of the agency fees owed to the Plaintiffs, all of Plaintiffs' claims were moot. Ruling and Order on Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 182 (Oct. 19, 2018) ("SJ Order"). The Court therefore denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal in the event there is an effort to reintroduce agency fees and to the extent Plaintiffs were not adequately reimbursed for past agency fees already imposed. Id. at 3. The Court also permitted Plaintiffs to file a post-judgment motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Id.

On November 16, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and expenses on the ground that they were a "prevailing party" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Pls.' Petition for Attys' Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, ECF No. 183 (Nov. 16, 2018) ("Fee Mot."). On May 30 and 31, 2019, both sets of Defendants opposed the motion. See State Defs.' Mem. of L. in Opp'n to Fee Mot., ECF No. 195 (May 30, 2019) ("State Defs.' Fee Obj."); State Police Union's Obj. to Fee Mot., ECF No. 196 (May 31, 2019) ("Union Fee Obj."). On September 6, 2019, the Court denied the motion, finding Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties under § 1988. Ruling on Mot. for Atty's Fees and Expenses, ECF No. 202 (Sept. 6, 2019) ("Fee Order").

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court's order denying their motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. Pls.' Mot. for Reconsideration of the Ct.'s Order (ECF No. 202) Denying Their Petition for Attys' Fees and Expenses, ECF No. 203 (Sept. 13, 2019); Pls.' Mem. of L. in Supp. of Their Mot. for Reconsideration of the Ct.'s Order (ECF No. 202) Denying Their Petition for Attys' Fees and Expenses, ECF No. 203-1 (Sept. 13, 2019) ("Mot. for Reconsideration"). Both the State Police Union and the State Defendants objected to the motion. See Def., Conn. State Police Union, Obj. to Pls.' Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 204 (Sept. 20, 2019) ("Union Obj. Reconsideration"); State Defs.' Mem. of L. in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Reconsideration, ECF No. 205 (Sept. 23, 2019) ("State Defs.' Obj. Reconsideration").

On October 4, 2019, Plaintiffs appealed the Court's orders denying their motions for summary judgment and for attorneys' fees and expenses. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 206 (Oct. 4, 2019).

On October 1, 2020, the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that "no final, appealable judgment [had been] entered in the district court." Lamberty v.Conn. State Police Union, 828 F. App'x 49, 51 (2d Cir. 2020). The Second Circuit therefore remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. Id. at 51-52.

On remand, the State Defendants and the State Police Union now move to dismiss the case. See Mot. to Dismiss on Remand, ECF No. 216 (Oct. 29, 2020) ("State Defs.' MTD"); Def. CSPU's Mot. to Dismiss and to Enter J. Against Pls., ECF No. 226 (Jan. 15, 2021); Mem. of L. in Supp. of Def. CSPU's Mot. to Dismiss and to Enter J. Against Pls., ECF No. 226-1 (Jan. 15, 2021) ("Union MTD"). Plaintiffs oppose both motions to dismiss. See Pls.' Mem. in Opp'n to State Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss on Remand, ECF No. 217 (Nov. 17, 2020) ("Pls.' Opp'n State Defs.' MTD"); Pls.' Opp'n to Def. CSPU's Mot. to Dismiss and Enter J. Against Pls. on Remand (ECF No. 226); Resp. to State Defs.' Suppl. Brief (ECF No. 225), ECF No. 227 (Feb. 5, 2021) ("Pls.' Opp'n Union MTD").

For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the State Defendants' and State Police Union's motions to dismiss.

The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and to modify their request for attorneys' fees to include additional fees incurred since last filing.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Familiarity with the facts and prior proceedings, as detailed in the Court's October 19, 2018 Ruling and Order, is assumed.2 See SJ Order.

On August 9, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no longer any dispute of material fact in light of the holding of Janus. See Pls.' MSJ. At that time, Plaintiffs also requested relief in the form of an award of costs and attorney's fees. See id. at 8-10.

On August 21, 2018, the State Police Union filed a status report informing the Court that it had, after Janus, "reimbursed the individual Plaintiffs for the entirety of their individual monetary demands (dues/fees that had been withheld plus claimed interest)" and requested a status conference with the Court to discuss the pending motion. See Status Report, ECF No. 165 (Aug. 21, 2018).

On August 29, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties. Min. Entry, ECF No. 169 (Aug. 29, 2018). During that call, Plaintiffs did not challenge the sufficiency of the reimbursements, but instead suggested other remaining injunctive relief rendered the case not moot. SJ Order at 6.

On August 30, 2018, the State Defendants and the State Police Union opposed summary judgment, arguing that all of Plaintiffs' claims were moot. State Defs.' MSJ Opp'n; Union MSJ Opp'n. Specifically, State Defendants argued that "any relief available to Plaintiffs was rendered moot in light of (1) the holding of Janus; (2) the State Defendants' decision to cease collection of all fair share fees post-Janus; and (3) the State Police Union's reimbursement of all previously-withheld fair share fees, plus interest, to Plaintiffs." SJ Order at 6 (citing State Defs.' MSJ Opp'n at 2-4). The State Police Union argued that because the collective bargaining agreement at issue expired on June 30, 2018, the challenge to the indemnification provision was moot, and also included in its opposition papers images of reimbursement checks it claims it sent to Plaintiffs. Id. at 7 (citing Check Images, Ex. A to Union MSJ Opp'n, ECF No. 171-1 (Aug. 20, 2018)).

On October 19, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that all of Plaintiffs' claims had become moot. See SJ Order at 18 ("In the end, there is nothing for this Court to order Defendants to do now."). The Court held that the State Police Union's reimbursement of their previously-withheld agency fees, plus interest, mooted Mr. Lamberty's and Mr. Mercer's claims. See id. at 13-14 ("Mr. Lamberty retired from state service shortly after this lawsuit began, on April 1, 2015, and Mr. Mercer retired on January 1, 2017 . . . . Their injury is their claim for the agency fees that had previously been withheld during their employment. But that injury appears to have been addressed in its entirety when the Union reimbursed Mr. Lamberty and Mr. Mercer for their previously-withheld fees, plus interest."). The Court also found that Carson and Collin Konow's claims for retrospective relief similarly were mooted by the State Police Union's reimbursement of their previously-withheld agency fees, plus interest, while their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were mooted by the Supreme Court's broad, unequivocal holding in Janus invalidating all state laws requiring the withholding of agency fees from nonconsenting employees, and the State Defendants' immediate compliance with that holding. Id. at 16-19.

The Court's denial was without prejudice to renewal in the event there was an effort to re-introduce agency fees, and to the extent the Plaintiffs had not been adequately reimbursed for past agency fees already imposed. Id. at 18-19 ("By denying the motion without prejudice, the Court permits Plaintiffs Carson and Collin Konow the ability to return to federal court ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT