Pearson v. Lorancaitis
| Decision Date | 19 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09cv1641(VLB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | JOHN PEARSON, AND LESLEY PEARSON PLAINTIFFS, v. BART LORANCAITIS ET AL., DEFENDANTS. |
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant Police Officers Bart Lorancaitis and Christopher Vanghele (collectively referred to herein as the "Defendant Officers"). The Plaintiffs, John Pearson ("Pearson") and his wife Lesley Pearson, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and for unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against the Defendant Officers as well as Jeffrey J. Engler ("Engler"), Plaintiffs' neighbor. Plaintiffs also allege Connecticut common law defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons stated hereafter, the Defendant Officers' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the Plaintiffs' federal law claims and the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.
The following facts relevant to Defendants' motion for summary judgment are undisputed unless otherwise noted. On December 21, 2008 at approximately 3:18 p.m., the Newtown Police Department ("NPD") received a complaint by Engler that his neighbor, Pearson, had used profanity towards him, was verbally abusive and caused annoyance by revving the engine of his ATV. [Dkt. #53, Ex. A. Aff. of Lorancaitis and Vanghele ¶1, 4 and Ex. C, Arrest Warrant Application ¶2].
It is undisputed that there is a long history of disputes between the Pearson and Engler families. Plaintiffs allege that the inter-family feud began in the summer of 2000, when Lesley Pearson's minor son was accused of stealing a quarter by Engler's wife. [Dkt. #64, Ex. #6, Dep. of Lesley Pearson at 31-32]. From that time forward, Plaintiffs allege that the Englers took part in a "decade long persecution" of the Pearsons, effectuated by continuous harassment and false complaints. [Dkt. #64, Pl. Opposition to Summary Judgment at 2]. Prior to the December 21, 2008 incident, Plaintiffs allege that the Englers filed numerous false complaints to NPD in an attempt to have Plaintiffs and other residents arrested. [Dkt. #64, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶7]. The alleged false complaints involve accusations of unsafe driving, placing a raccoon carcass in the Englers' mailbox, dog bites among other miscellaneous accusations. [Dkt. #64, Ex. #8].
Defendant Officers Lorancaitis and Vanghele, along with one Officer Borges, responded to Engler's complaint. [Dkt. #53, Ex. C, Arrest Warrant Application]. First, the Defendants Officers interviewed Engler at his residencewho reported that Pearson while riding his ATV on his own property, stopped and screamed profanities at him and revved his engine and continued. [Id.].
After interviewing Engler, the three officers proceeded to the Pearson residence to interview Pearson. [Dkt. #53, Def. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶7]. A conversation between the Defendant Officers and Pearson ensued. [Dkt. #53, Ex. C, Arrest Warrant Application ¶3]. The Defendant Officers allege that Pearson was not cooperative with their efforts to investigate the complaint and declined to give a sworn statement about the incident. [Dkt. #53, Def. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶7]. Shortly afterward, Pearson called 911 to report that he was being harassed by three Newtown Police officers and asked to speak with the Connecticut State Police. .
Pearson asserts that the Defendant Officers did not attempt to take a statement from him and harassed him. [Dkt. #64, Pl. 56(a)2 Stmt., disputed issues of material fact at ¶11]. In support of this assertion, Pearson testified at length in his deposition recounting his interaction with the Defendant Officers. [Dkt. #64, Ex. 1, Pearson Dep. 56-59]. Pearson testified that upon seeing Defendant Lorancaitis approach him, he stopped his ATV and stated "Oh, no, what did I do now?" [Id. at 56]. According to Pearson, Lorancaitis then stated "[t]hat's not a very good way to start a conversation." Lorancaitis asked Pearson "what did you say" and he responded "I didn't say anything." [Id.]. Pearson testified that Lorancaitis then looked at him and started to point his finger and said "what exactly did you say?" [Id. at 57]. Pearson responded [Id.]. Pearsontestified that Vanghele interrupted him and said "I know you fucking said something" in a "loud, angry, and belligerent" manner. [Id.]. Pearson then testified that he told his wife who just come out of their house that [Id.]. Afterward, he told Vanghele [Id.]. Vanghele then asked Pearson Pearson testified that he ended the encounter by stating to the Defendant Officers that [Id. at 58]. Pearson testified that Lorancaitas told him that he was being a "wise ass" and afterward Pearson instructed his wife to call 911. [Id.]. Lastly, Pearson testified that before the Defendant Officers left his residence Vanghele told him that they would be back and that he would be arrested. [Id. at 59].
After the Defendant Officers left Pearson's residence, they obtained a sworn statement from Engler. In his statement, Engler alleges that Pearson was riding his ATV approximately four to five feet from Engler's property line and stopped and screamed "you're a fucking dick head you asshole, make sure you have your phone on record you fuckin' prick." [Dkt. #53, Ex. B, Stmt. of Jeffrey Engler at 1]. Engler then alleges that Pearson revved his engine then continued to drive his ATV. Id. He further alleges that he heard Pearson scream more profanity at him, but that he could not make out the precise words. Id. After the officers obtained the sworn statement from Engler, they left the scene.
On December 28, 2008, Officer Lorancaitis prepared an arrest warrant application for Pearson for violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-181, Breach of the Peace in the Second Degree. [Dkt. #53, Ex. C, Arrest Warrant Application]. The warrant included a description of the Defendant Officers' encounter with Pearson. The Defendant Officers asserted in the warrant that "Pearson drove up, stepped off the ATV and stated '[w]hat did I do wrong this time?'" [Id. at ¶3]. Vanghele then asked Pearson what he had said to Engler and Pearson stated "not a single word." [Id.]. Vanghele asked again what Pearson had said to which Pearson responded [Id.]. Pearson then stated that "I want your name and badge number, Sgt. Vanghele" and shouted to his wife "[t]hese cops are harassing me, this Sgt. Venghele." [Id.]. The Defendant Officers asserted that Pearson referred to Vanghele with a profanity and went inside his residence. [Id.]. The warrant also included a detailed description of Engler's sworn statement.
The warrant indicated that the Defendant Officers provided Pearson with an opportunity to provide a statement, but that he refused to cooperate. It also noted that Pearson had been previously arrested by the NPD "on a warrant for an incident involving Engler and [that] a history of disputes exists between the families." Pearson was arrested on August 11, 2007 [Id.]. The warrant also indicated that "Engler made a verbal statement to Loracaitis about the outcome of the previous cases…[and] stated a judge placed a no contact order on Pearson" but that "Lorancaitis was unable to locate an active protective or restraining order." [Id.].
The warrant was issued, and Pearson was arrested and prosecuted for the crime of disorderly conduct, in violation of General Statutes §53a-182. [Dkt. #64, Pl. Opposition to Summary Judgment at 5]. On July 2, 2009, a jury acquitted Pearson of all charges arising out of the December 21, 2008 incident. [Id.].
Pearson alleges that he did not have any interaction with any member of the Engler Family on December 21, 2008 and that he never revved his engine on his ATV as it "was technically impossible to do so as his ATV does not have a clutch." [Dkt. #64, Pl. Rule 56 Stmt. ¶¶9-10,16]. He also alleges that he installed security cameras on his property prior to December 2008 that were visible outside his home and captured him riding his ATV that day but that the Defendant Officers never requested copies of such footage. [Id. at ¶18].
Summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of proving that no factual issues exist. Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98, 106 (2d Cir. 2010). "In determining whether that burden has been met, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and credit all factual inferences that could be drawn in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Id., (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); MatsushitaElectric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). "If there is any evidence in the record that could reasonably support a jury's verdict for the non-moving party, summary judgment must be denied." Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Hapag Lloyd...
To continue reading
Request your trial