Nin v. Luzerne Cnty.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | 3:17-CV-802 |
| Parties | KARELIZ NIN Plaintiff, v. LUZERNE COUNTY and LUZERNE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(JUDGE MARIANI)
This case arises out of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendants Luzerne County and Luzerne County Children and Youth Services ("LCCYS") related to disclosure of confidential information and dependency proceedings resulting in a custody determination granting removal of Plaintiff's children. (Doc. 65.) Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 67.)
Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County on October 21, 2016, naming Luzerne County and LCCYS as Defendants. (Doc. 1-1.) On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in state court, alleging a single 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation and naming only LCCYS as a defendant. (Id.) LCCYS removed the action to this Court (Doc. 1) and moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 3.) On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint to add Luzerne County as a defendant, without adding any new claims or substantive allegations. (Doc. 19.) The Court granted the motion (Doc. 28) and Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2017 (Doc. 29). On November 9, 2017, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss. (Doc. 32.) The Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on August 3, 2018. (Doc. 52.)
On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 53), which Defendants again moved to dismiss. (Doc. 57.) The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (Docs. 63, 64.) In so doing, the Court noted that allowing another leave to amend was "in the interest of providing Plaintiff a final opportunity to set forth a properly pleaded Complaint." (Doc. 63 at 12.)
On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. 65.) On October 23, 2019, Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss at issue here pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 67.) The issues have been fully briefed (Docs. 68-70) and Defendants' Motion is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 65) alleges the following facts which, for the purposes of resolving Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court takes as true.
Plaintiff is the natural mother of Cecilia Nin, born May 21, 2012. (Doc. 65 ¶ 2.) On December 28, 2012, Cecilia was taken to the Wilkes-Barre General Hospital by ambulance after she became unresponsive. (Id. ¶ 10.) Cecilia was later discharged to Plaintiff after the hospital performed various diagnostic tests. (Id. ¶ 11.) On January 4, 2013, Cecilia was taken to Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center because she was again unresponsive.(Id. ¶ 12.) Based on the results of the diagnostic tests and physical examinations performed during the second visit, LCCYS petitioned the state court for dependency of Cecilia and Plaintiff's two older children, Reina and Faviyan, alleging suspected abuse. (Id. ¶ 13.) The state court granted LCCYS's petition and directed the three children be removed from her care and custody and placed into foster care. (Id. ¶ 14.) On January 7, 2013, while still an inpatient at Geisinger hospital and in the custody of LCCYS, Cecilia died. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 22.) The state court issued an order finding Cecilia not dependent because she was deceased. (Id. ¶ 16.) LCCYS continued to handle the case regarding Reina and Faviyan who were placed in foster care. (Id. ¶ 17.) Cecilia's Autopsy Report reported the manner of death was a homicide caused by blunt force trauma to the head and she separately suffered multiple bilateral rib and forearm fractures. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19, 21.) Cecilia's death triggered a fatality investigation and a criminal investigation by Luzerne County District Attorney's office, but the status of these investigations is unknown. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24, 27.) Plaintiff has never been charged with the homicide death of Cecilia. (Id. ¶ 28). As a result of CYS's investigation, Plaintiff's two older children were placed in the custody of LCCYS for more than five years until they were reunited with Plaintiff after there was "no finding of abuse against [Plaintiff]." (Id. ¶¶ 65-68.)
Between January 4, 2013 and September 19, 2014, LCCYS caseworkers Allison Cave and Michael Wurth contacted attorneys Dave Aikens and Andrew Bigda (collectively "Estate Counsel"), and discussed and disseminated Plaintiff's and Cecilia's confidential LCCYS file in an attempt to persuade Estate Counsel to open an estate on behalf of Ceciliaand file a medical malpractice action. (Id. ¶¶ 29-31.) Estate Counsel contacted attorneys Joseph Vullo and Donald Roberts to discuss opening an estate in order to pursue the medical malpractice action. (Id. ¶ 38.) Estate Counsel had no prior relationship with Cecilia. (Id. ¶ 32.) At the time, no estate had been opened for Cecilia and there was no legally appointed representative of an estate for Cecilia. (Id. ¶ 33-34.)
On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff received a "Representative Notice of Estate Administration Pursuant to Pa. O.C. Rule 5.6" regarding the Estate of Cecilia Nin, which was prepared and issued by Estate Counsel and named Vullo as administrator of the estate. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41.) Plaintiff was never consulted or otherwise notified of the process to appoint a representative for Cecilia's estate and had no participation in the administration of Cecilia's estate. (Id. ¶¶ 42-46.) Plaintiff cannot access Cecilia's estate file because it is sealed. (Id. ¶ 47.) Prior to the opening of Cecilia's estate, Estate Counsel were "not legally privy to the confidential information contained within Plaintiff and Cecilia's CYS files." (Id. ¶ 50.) Thus, any dissemination of that information was "illegal and unauthorized." (Id. ¶ 51.)
On August 10, 2015, Estate Counsel filed a medical malpractice suit against various defendants, including Plaintiff, on behalf of the estate representative. (Id. ¶¶ 53-54.) Plaintiff alleges the sole reason for Estate Counsel to file the complaint was for their own financial gain. (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiff was not aware of and was not consulted about the lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiff alleges "the only way Estate Counsel could have come across the information necessary to open the estate, evaluate a possible medical malpractice claim, prepare and file the Complaint and continue to litigate the lawsuit, would have beenthrough illegal and unauthorized dissemination of information." (Id. ¶ 57.) The medical malpractice complaint contains "very specific and detailed information" including information regarding Cecilia's emergency room visits, inpatient stay, autopsy, and details of the dependency hearing regarding Plaintiff's care of Cecilia. (Id. ¶¶ 79-81.) "All of the specific detailed information contained in the Complaint is highly confidential and protected by various County, State and Federal Rules and Regulations." (Id. ¶ 82.) This information is not public, and Plaintiff did not give any of this information to the Estate Counsel or Estate Representative. (Id. ¶¶ 83, 85.) Nonetheless, the Representative or the Estate Counsel had access to this information before the Estate was opened. (Id. ¶ 84.) "The only way" this confidential information could have been disclosed is through a Court Order or Plaintiff's authorization. (Id. ¶ 86.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges "CYS representatives contacted the Estate Counsel, unsolicited and illegally, and provided the information to Estate Counsel." (Id. ¶ 87.)
Plaintiff asserts "Defendants have failed to implement any policies and/or procedures to ensure compliance with" federal and state laws that govern Child Protective Services and protect privacy. (Id. ¶ 101.) Plaintiff further alleges that when Defendants disclosed the file to Estate Counsel, Defendants "knew or should have known that an estate had not yet been opened," "a representative had not yet been appointed," and "Estate Counsel did not represent Cecilia's interests" because Defendant initiated the contact with Estate Counsel and informed them of Cecilia's existence. (Id. ¶¶ 106-108.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated her constitutional right to privacy by "illegally releasing information, which is held tobe confidential and protected by the aforementioned Federal and State laws, to persons with no legal standing to have access to said information at the time of dissemination." (Id. ¶ 109.) The information in Plaintiff's LCCYS file was made public in the medical malpractice complaint and is no longer confidential. (Id. ¶¶ 111-12.) This information "has since been used against [Plaintiff] in the administration of Cecilia's estate, the [medical malpractice action] and custody proceeding regarding [Plaintiff's] two other children." (Id. ¶ 111.)
Plaintiff avers that "[t]he shortage of staff and overburdened caseworkers have left Defendants without the necessary resources to properly train and/or supervise their employees, agents and servants." (Id. ¶ 129; see also ¶¶ 117-127 (allegations regarding LCCYS understaffing).) Defendants' failure to train and/or supervise their employees "amounts to subjective recklessness for the rights of the children and families, including [Plaintiff], involved with CYS." (Id. ¶ 130.) The failure to train and/or supervise has led to a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Id. ¶¶ 135-36.)
To continue reading
Request your trial