Oberg v. City of Taunton
| Decision Date | 25 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12–10264–JLT. |
| Citation | 972 F.Supp.2d 174 |
| Parties | Raymond OBERG, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TAUNTON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynn A. Leonard, Melrose, MA, for Plaintiff.
John J. Davis, Jill M. Murray, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, Gareth W. Notis, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
I. Introduction
Pending before this court are Defendant Joshua Acerra's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [# 18], the City of Taunton's (“City”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [# 21], and the Taunton Police Department, the Taunton City Council, Acting Police Chief John Reardon, Lieutenant Paul Roderick, and David Potter, Jason Buffington, Sherri Costa–Hanlon, Thomas Hoye, Deborah Carr, Jordan Fiore, Mansour Barbour, Gerald Croteau, and Andrew Marshall's (collectively: “City Council Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [# 23].1
For the reasons and to the extent stated below, the three motions to dismiss are ALLOWED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
II. BackgroundA. Factual Background2
In September 2007, Defendant Acerra worked as an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (“DOC”) and was seeking employment with the Taunton Police Department. Plaintiff, the Police Chief of the City at the time, initially assigned Captain Robert Smith to conduct a background investigation of Acerra. After receiving the file and consulting with City Solicitor Steven Torres, Acerra was hired as a probationary patrolman upon Plaintiff's recommendation even though he had a prior a domestic restraining order against him and an arrest for underage drinking. Acerra was hired as a probationarypolice officer due to the “lax standards of the Municipal Council” and passing a background check with his former employer, the DOC. 3
In June 2008, Reardon began investigating Acerra for his connection to drug activity at a triple-decker house in East Taunton. He spoke with Plaintiff, who then contacted the city clerk, Rosemarie Blackwell. Blackwell was advised that the information was sensitive in nature and was asked to keep the information confidential. In July, Reardon informed Plaintiff that no activity had been observed at the house.
At or around this time period, Reardon requested Acerra's personnel file. Thereafter, Reardon informed Plaintiff “that it appeared there had not been a complete background investigation and that people were talking that Acerra had been fired from DOC.” 4 The DOC was contacted and the rumors about Acerra's termination were substantiated. Records received from the DOC revealed that the Police Department never contacted the DOC as part of Acerra's initial background check. In early September 2008, Acerra telephoned Plaintiff and told him about his upcoming graduation from the Police Academy. Plaintiff asked Acerra to contact Reardon, at which point Acerra asked if it was about the investigation. Acerra later revealed to investigators Reardon and Roderick that the City Clerk informed him of an internal investigation. The revelation led Plaintiff to prepare a written report and to refer the matter to Torres for an internal investigation of Acerra and the City Clerk, Blackwell.
On September 22, 2008, Plaintiff reviewed Acerra's firearm application and found a number of incorrect answers. On September 23, 2008, Reardon and Plaintiff interviewed Acerra about his answers but he offered conflicting statements.5 On September 24, 2008, Plaintiff met with Mayor Charles Crowley (“Mayor”). The Mayor instructed Plaintiff to turn the investigation over to Torres. Plaintiff complied and on September 25, 2008, hand delivered his report on Acerra to Torres. Later in December 2008, Detective Robert Kramer notified Plaintiff by e-mail about “information from the State Police on Acerra allegedly leaking information on a drug investigation.” 6 Thereafter, Reardon and Torres placed Acerra on administrative leave.
In late January 2009, a three-member panel of the City Council offered to allow Acerra to resign instead of facing drug charges. Plaintiff provided background information about the allegations against Acerra at the hearing. Acerra rejected the offer. The hearing continued on February 13, 2009, at which point the three-member panel voted to send the matter to the City Council with a recommendation to terminate Acerra. Plaintiff was the panel chair at the hearing.
On February 17, 2009, the City Council conducted the first of several “open hearings.” During the first hearing, Acerra alleged that Plaintiff withheld evidence during the internal investigation of Acerra.7 Reading from a prepared statement, and not under oath, Acerra also stated that he was “subject to retaliation for exposing an affair between [Plaintiff] and the City Clerk and for truthfully reporting that the City Clerk alerted him to the ongoing investigation.” 8 The City Council also allowed Acerra's request to sequester witnesses.
At the second open hearing on March 3, 2009, Roderick, a sergeant with the Police Department,9 and Defendant Andrew Marshall, a City Councilor, accused Plaintiff of obstructing the investigation and tampering with the DVD evidence.10 At the third hearing on March 10, 2009, the City Council went into “executive session,” during which the City Clerk, Rosemarie Blackwell, was called to testify but did not have any information relevant to the charges. Plaintiff did not attend the hearing due to medical issues. Returning to the public session, the City Council openly debated Plaintiff's medical condition and his failure to appear at the hearing.11 The same subject matter was discussed at a fourth hearing on March 17, 2009. The City Council also sought an order from the Superior Court compelling Plaintiff's appearance and testimony, but the court denied the motion on procedural grounds.
Plaintiff appeared and testified at the fifth hearing on March 24, 2009. At this hearing, the City Council reprimanded Plaintiff for the poor initial background check of Acerra and for following Torres' advice rather than bringing the matter to the attention of the City Council. The Council then voted to terminate Acerra. Defendant Jordan Fiore,12 a City Councilor, acknowledged that “Acerra and his attorney went out of their way to personally humiliate [Plaintiff] and his family” during the first hearing on February 17, 2009.13
At or around the time of the March 24, 2009 hearing, the City Council placed Plaintiff on administrative leave.14 In or around April 2009, Reardon and Roderick filed a grievance challenging overtime hours submitted by two police sergeants for work performed on the Acerra investigation. The City Council voted on the grievance even though the Police Chief has the authority to assign police officers to various investigations.15
Also during this time, the City Council considered a motion by a councilman to request that the United States Attorney's Office and the Attorney General of Massachusetts conduct an investigation into Acerra's hiring, “the apparent improper disclosure of sensitive police information,” and other matters.16 The Council then voted to form a committee to handle the investigation. In April 2009, the City Council authorized $25,000 for an investigation, including the hiring of an independent investigator. The Mayor refused to authorize the funding. Plaintiff retired on May 15, 2009 because of “statements made publicly and privately that the City intended to terminate his employment.” 17
B. Procedural History
On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a thirteen-count Amended Complaint [# 17]. The caption of the case in the amended complaint identifies the “Taunton Police Department” and the “Taunton City Council” as defendants. The City points out that these defendants have no legal existence or liability separate from the City.18
The body of the amended complaint does not identify these entities under the section applicable to “PARTIES.” The heading of each count identifies the defendant against whom Plaintiff brings the claim. None of the headings in any of the counts name the Taunton Police Department or the Taunton City Council. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) instructs that the caption of a complaint “must name all the parties.” Where, as here, “the identity of the defendants is unclear from the caption, courts may look to the body of the complaint to determine who the intended and proper defendants are.” 19 The body of the amended complaint clarifies that neither the Taunton Police Department nor the Taunton City Council are defendants in this action. In any event, as pointed out by the City, the Taunton Police Department and the Taunton City Council “have no legal existence or liability separate from the City.” 20 Plaintiff concedes this issue.21
The amended complaint asserts: civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all Defendants (Count One); conspiracy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and Massachusetts common law against all Defendants (Count Two); 22 violation of free speech under the First Amendment against all Defendants (Count Three); state constitutional claims under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, Articles 29 and 30, against the City and the City Council Defendants (Count Four); procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment against the City and the City Council Defendants (Count Five); defamation against Reardon, Roderick, and Acerra (Count Six); intentional invasion of privacy against all Defendants (Count Seven); retaliation under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, sections H and I of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 12 (“MCRA”) against all Defendants (Count Eight); retaliation in violation of section 185 of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 149 against the City and the City Council Defendants (Count Nine); constructive termination against the City and the City Council Defendants (Count Ten);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melville v. Town of Adams
...“with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” See Oberg v. City of Taunton, 972 F.Supp.2d 174, 206–07, 2013 WL 5347437, at *17–18 (D.Mass.2013) (“Plaintiff cannot rely on ‘actual malice buzzwords,’ and must plead facts to support his legal con......
-
Thomas v. Town of Salisbury
...to public officials. Therefore, the complaint supports the conclusion that Thomas was acting as a private citizen.Oberg v. City of Taunton , 972 F.Supp.2d 174 (D.Mass.2013), is similarly distinguishable. There, the court held that statements made by a Chief of Police, which related to his j......
-
Grendell v. Maine
...upon a valid § 1985 claim," the Defendants' Partial Motions to Dismiss are also granted as to the § 1986 claim. Oberg v. City of Taunton, 972 F. Supp. 2d 174, 201 (D. Mass. 2013) (quoting Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1088 (2d Cir. 1993)); cf. Maymí v. P.R. P......
-
Thomas v. Town of Salisbury
...he was required to report. These factors all "point to the conclusion that the speech was not protected[.]" Oberg v. City of Taunton, 972 F.Supp.2d 174, 196 (D. Mass. 2013) (Police Chief was not acting as a private citizen when he reported information about a patrolman to the City Council).......