Murphy v. City of Stamford
| Decision Date | 25 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00942 (JCH) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | KAREN A. MURPHY and KATHLEEN A. MURPHY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF STAMFORD ET AL., Defendants. |
On August 12, 2013, defendants City of Stamford, City of Stamford Board of Assessment Appeals, Frank Kirwin, Bill Jessa, Anne S. Peskin, Shawn C. Costello, George Sessa, Raymond Leyden, Starr Merritt, and Joseph J. Capalbo moved to dismiss eight of the ten counts in the Complaint filed by plaintiffs Karen and Kathleen Murphy ("the Murphys") against them. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint ("Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss") (Doc. No. 33) at 1. Defendants specifically move to dismiss Count One, Count Two, Count Four, and Counts Six through Ten for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Defendants also seek to dismiss the Motion on the grounds that: the Board of Assessment Appeals, members of the Board, and Stamford officials are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity; the Complaint fails to allege that Frank Kirwn was personally involved in the alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights; and the plaintiffs' state law claims fails as a matter of law because they have adequate remedies at state law. Id. at 2. Defendants request that, should the court dismiss these counts, itremand Count Three and Count Five—appeals pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, sections 12-117a and 12-119—to Stamford Superior Court. Id. at 2 n.1.
The Murphys jointly own a property—consisting of the land and all buildings and improvements thereon—located at 68 Saddle Rock Road in Stamford, Connecticut. Notice of Removal ("Not. of Rem.") (Doc. 1) at Exh. 3, ¶ 1. According to the Murphys, the Stamford Tax Assessor, defendant Frank Kirwin ("Kirwin"), improperly assessed the value of their property when the property was revalued on October 1, 2012. Id. at ¶ 7. The Murphys assert that Kirwin's assessment contained multiple errors, resulting in the overvaluation of the property. Id.
On March 20, 2013, the Murphys appealed to the Stamford Board of Assessment Appeals ("Board"), claiming that they had been aggrieved by Kirwin's assessments and offering to testify to any questions concerning the property. Id. at ¶ 8. On April 4, 2013, the Board held an appeal hearing, which Karen Murphy attended; the hearing was conducted by Board member Shawn Costello ("Costello"). Id. at ¶ 12. The Murphys allege that, on at least two or three occasions during the hearing, Costello left the room and conducted ex parte communications with Deputy Tax Assessor Bashir Jessa ("Jessa") and/or others. Id. at ¶ 16. During the hearing, Costello requested certain additional information from the Murphys, which they provided on April 9, 2013. Id. at ¶ 17.
On April 9, 2013, the Board held a deliberation meeting, which Karen Murphy attended. Id. at ¶ 20. Four Board members, including Costello, and Jessa were present at the meeting. Id. at ¶ 21. The Murphys maintain that Jessa attended themeeting to represent Kirwin and assist the Board. Id. at ¶ 22. During the meeting, Costello left the room with Jessa to discuss the additional information the Murphys submitted on April 9; upon returning with the additional evidence in hand, Costello looked at Karen Murphy and "said something to the effect [of] 'you did me in this time.'" Id. at ¶ 27. The Murphys assert that Costello and the Board had no opportunity to review the new evidence submitted on April 9, or question Karen Murphy or Jessa. Id. at ¶ 28. They also claim that Costello ignored the Murphys' evidence and failed to present most of the Murphys' challenges to Kirwin's methodology and judgments. Id. at ¶ 29.
Costello made two recommendations to the Board at the meeting. Id. at ¶ 30. The Murphys allege that both recommendations were based on Costello's ex parte discussion with Jessa prior to the meeting and that Costello provided no rational basis for the recommendations. Id. The Board approved the recommendations, the Murphys note, without discussing them or reviewing the Murphys' submitted evidence. Id. The Murphys apparently also submitted Field Cards for the Board's consideration, Cards that allegedly "showed conclusively, among other things, that [the Murphys'] land, home and pool [were] over[-]assessed." Id. at 32. Costello, the Murphys contend, did not show or discuss these Cards with the Board. Id. The Murphys observe that, following the deliberation meeting on their property, Costello showed and discussed Field Cards for other cases before the Board. Id. at ¶ 32.
Following the April 9 deliberation meeting, Karen Murphy found out that Costello's father-in-law was Dan McCabe ("McCabe"), an attorney of whom the Murphys had been "highly critical." Id. at ¶ 35, 39. The Murphys have been critical ofthe Mayor of Stamford and two other attorneys, who the Murphys claim are "close political friends" of McCabe, as well. Id. at ¶ 39. The Murphys assert that Costello did not disclose his relationship with McCabe, despite having the opportunity to do so during a conversation prior to the April 4 hearing. Id. at ¶ 37. Additionally, the Murphys claim that "the Administration," presumably that of the Mayor of Stamford, "retaliates against employees, elected and appointed officials and others who challenge its authority, decisions, or judgments." Id. at ¶ 40.
On April 15, the Murphys filed a request for a new hearing with the Chair of the Board, Anne Peskin ("Peskin"), based on Costello's alleged conflict and constitutional violations that the Murphys believe the Board committed during its deliberation meeting on the Murphys' appeal. Id. at ¶¶ 41-42. The Murphys' request was denied in a letter dated May 6, 2013, and signed by Stamford's Corporation Counsel, Joseph Capalbo ("Capalbo"), which stated that the Board did not conduct additional hearings after rendering its decision, and that the Murphys' exclusive remedy was an appeal of the Board's decision to the Superior Court of Connecticut. Id. at ¶ 46. The Murphys insist that their request for a new hearing was filed before the Board met on April 15 to decide Murphys' appeal. Id. at ¶ 45. The Murphys' responded to Capalbo's letter, challenging its claim that their request for a new hearing was filed after the Board issued its decision. Id. at ¶ 50. They did not receive a response. Id.
The Board issued a change to the October 2012 Assessment in a letter ("Notice of Action") dated April 22, 2013, revising the value of the property from $2,509,880 to $2,460,180. Id. at ¶ 43. The Murphys contend that the revised value still exceeds the true value of the property. Id. at ¶ 52. In addition, the Murphys claim that the Notice ofAction provides no factual or legal basis, explanation or justification for the revised assessment, fails to address the Murphys' reasons for appealing the original assessment, and is "replete with errors." Id. at ¶ 53-54.
Count One of the Murphys' Complaint seeks declaratory judgment of whether Connecticut General Statute, section 12-111, which provides for appeals of assessment determinations to the Board, allows the Board to delegate its authority to review appeals to only one member of the Board or an outsider. Id. at ¶¶ 67-71. If the court finds that section 12-111 does allow for such delegation, Count One seeks judgment on whether the failure to train the Board or the reviewing outsider in assessment matters or to disclose the procedures for how assessment appeals are assigned, amounts to deliberate indifference to the state and federal due process and equal protection rights of property owners. Id. at ¶ 72.
Count Two asserts that, through their conduct of the assessment appeal hearing, the Board, Kirwin, Jessa, and Capalbo wantonly, recklessly, and maliciously inflicted damages on the Murphys. Id. at ¶¶ 76-86.
Count Three appeals, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, section 12-117a, the Board's reassessment of the Murphys' property as well as, it appears, Kirwin's original assessment. Id. at ¶ 87-89.
Count Four appears to request a correction of errors found in the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 assessments and the October 2012 revised assessment of the Murphys' property, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, section 12-60. Id. at ¶¶ 90-94.
Count Five applies for relief, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute, section 12-119, from the tax on the Murphys' property that is based on the October 2012 revised assessment. Id. at ¶¶ 97-96.
Counts Six through Eight allege that the appeal hearing and subsequent issuance of the Notice of Action on the Murphys' property deprived the Murphys of equal protection of the laws as well as of substantive and procedural due process, violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; on this basis, the Murphys seek relief pursuant to title 42, United States Code, section 1983. Id. at ¶¶ 97-117.
Counts Nine and Ten allege that the defendants' allegedly unlawful acts constituted a civil conspiracy, and they request common law relief and relief pursuant to title 42, United States Code, section 1985(3). Id. at ¶¶ 118-22.
As relief, the Murphys seek a declaratory judgment, a reduction in their tax liability for their property and the assessment on which the liability is based, a reduction in the valuation of the property, correction of errors, refund of their overpayment of taxes, interest, attorneys' fees, and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 26.
The Murphys filed their Complaint against Stamford in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford. Not. of Rem. at Exh. 3. Stamford then removed the case to federal court.1 Id. at ¶ 6. The Murphys filed a Motion to Remand that was denied by this court on September 27, 2013. Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial