Soto v. City of N.Y.

• Citation: 132 F.Supp.3d 424
• Decision Date: 18 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 12–CV–4241 (MKB).,12–CV–4241 (MKB).
• Parties: Rafael SOTO, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, County of Kings, District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, Detective Daniel Bonilla, Police Officer Adam Feder, Assistant District Attorney John Giannotti, Assistant District Attorney Lindsay Gerdes, Lieutenant Christophe Marrow, and Detective Brian Meichsner, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

132 F.Supp.3d 424

Rafael SOTO, Plaintiff,

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, County of Kings, District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, Detective Daniel Bonilla, Police Officer Adam Feder, Assistant District Attorney John Giannotti, Assistant District Attorney Lindsay Gerdes, Lieutenant Christophe Marrow, and Detective Brian Meichsner, Defendants.

No. 12–CV–4241 (MKB).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 18, 2015.

Gregory Paul Mouton, Law Office of Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Brian Francolla, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE

, District Judge:

Plaintiff Rafael Soto commenced the above-captioned action on August 23, 2012. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) On July 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, bringing claims against the City of New York, County of Kings, District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, Detective Daniel Bonilla, Police Officer Adam Feder, Assistant District Attorney John Giannotti, Assistant District Attorney Lindsay Gerdes, Lieutenant Christophe Marrow, and Detective Brian Meichsner as Defendants. (Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 11.) Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments in violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983

; (2) unlawful stop and search; (3) false arrest; (4) denial of substantive due process; (5) malicious abuse of process; (6) malicious prosecution; (7) failure to intervene; (8) conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (9) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; and (10) municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).¹ Defendants move for summary judgment, (Defs. Mot. for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry No. 54; Defs. Mem. in Support of Defs. Mot. for Summary Judgment ("Defs. Mem."), Docket Entry No. 55), and Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment and for sanctions. (Pl. Mots. for Summary Judgment and Sanctions, Docket Entry No. 58.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and sanctions.²

I. Background

Plaintiff was arrested and charged with multiple counts of robbery in the second degree and burglary in the first and second degrees, and one count each of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, kidnapping in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, stemming from the October 20, 2011 robbery and kidnapping of Masahiro Yoshida (the "robbery-kidnapping"). (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 66; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 66; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 71–73; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 71–73;³ Deposition of Lindsay Gerdes ("Gerdes Dep.") 277:2–17, annexed to Decl. of Gregory Mouton ("Mouton Decl.") as Ex. 27, Docket Entry No. 58–1.⁴ )

a. Attempted purchase of the bread route

In the summer of 2011, Masahiro Yoshida tried to purchase a bread delivery route from Plaintiff. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 29; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 29; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 31(a); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 31(a).) The company, Mr. Route Incorporated ("Mr. Route"), brokered the transaction. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33(a); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 33(a).) As part of the process, Yoshida submitted various information to Mr. Route, including a "binder agreement" containing his home address, which was supposed to be sent to Plaintiff if "everything [was] done right." (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 32–33; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 32–33; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33(c); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 33(c); Deposition of Masahiro Yoshida ("Yoshida Dep.") 14:20–25, annexed to Francolla Decl. as Ex. C.⁵ ) During the negotiations, to appear as a serious buyer, Yoshida falsely told Plaintiff that he kept $100,000 inside a safe in his apartment. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33(a); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 33(a); Defs. 56.1 ¶ 31; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 31.)

Yoshida also completed a "ride along" of the bread route with Plaintiff's employee, Jonathan Mena. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 31(b); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 31(b).) As they drove the route, Yoshida and Mena discussed their personal lives, and Yoshida extended Mena an informal job offer contingent on the route purchase. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 34; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 34; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 34.) Yoshida may have told Mena about the purported $100,000 he had to make the purchase. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 33(d); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 33(d).) Ultimately, negotiations broke down, and the purchase fell through. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 41; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 41.)

b. Kidnapping of Yoshida

In the early morning hours of October 20, 2011, Mena and his friend, Pablo Dickson,⁶ kidnapped Yoshida in an attempt to rob him. Earlier that night, Mena called Dickson with a plan to make $20,000 each by robbing someone who had a large sum of money. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 3–6, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 3–6, 24.) Initially, Dickson could not speak with Mena at length, but he called Mena back, discussed the plan, and agreed to it. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 4, 8, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 4, 8, 24.) Mena said it would happen that night. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 8, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 8, 24.)

In the early morning hours of October 20, 2011, Mena picked Dickson up in a van. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 9–10, 24.) At some point, Mena pulled over and covered the van's license plate with a Minnesota license plate. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 13, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 13, 24; Defs. 56.1 ¶ 40; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 40.) During the drive, Mena confirmed to Dickson that they would each receive a $20,000 "cut" of the money, but that the robbery target had more than $40,000. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12, 24.) Dickson suggested they take all of the money for themselves, but Mena explained that they could not because "the other guy gotta get his cut." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 21; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 21; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12, 24.)

At approximately 4:30 AM, Mena and Dickson arrived at an apartment complex where they donned ski masks and confronted their target, Yoshida, at gunpoint. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 14–15, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 14–15, 24; Defs. 56.1 ¶ 3; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 3.) They hit Yoshida repeatedly with their guns, and demanded that Yoshida take them to his apartment. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 16–17, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 16–17, 24; Defs. 56.1 ¶ 3.) Yoshida proceeded to the first-floor, but Mena knew that he actually lived on the second-floor.⁷ (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 22; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 22.) Mena told Yoshida that he knew Yoshida had $100,000 in a safe in the apartment. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 17, 24; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 17, 24.) After Yoshida told them that there were other people in his apartment, and that he had money in his van, Mena and Dickson dragged him downstairs to the van. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 11–12.)

Mena and Dickson threw Yoshida into the back of his van and, using zip-ties, tied his ankles together and tied his hands behind his back. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 12.) With Yoshida bound in the back, Mena and Dickson left the area in Yoshida's van. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 13.) After responding to a potential burglary, New York City Police Department ("NYPD") officers discovered Yoshida's van while canvassing the area around his Brooklyn apartment. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 18; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 18.) They stopped the van, found Yoshida tied up, and arrested Mena and Dickson. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 13; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 13.) The police officers took Mena and Dickson to the 76th Precinct, and Emergency Medical Services transported Yoshida to Long Island College Hospital ("LICH") for treatment. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 18–19; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 18–19; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 20; Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 20; Deposition of Daniel Bonilla ("Bonilla Dep.") 31:2–32:3, annexed to Francolla Decl. as Ex. E.⁸ )

c. Mena and Plaintiff's communication on the day of the kidnapping

On October 19, 2011, approximately twelve hours before the attempted robbery, Plaintiff and Mena exchanged a series of text messages. At 4:09 PM, Mena messaged Plaintiff, "Hey, what's up?" (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 54; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 54.) At 4:11 PM, Plaintiff asked Mena if he was "trying to deliver bread," and, a minute later, Mena messaged Plaintiff, "No bro, I'm at home." (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 55–56; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 55–56; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 60(c)-(d); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 60(c)-(d).) In that message, Mena continued, "[I]'m just waiting on ya for the other thing. [A]ll the bread shit we can cover tomorrow man," and, thereafter, Plaintiff messaged Mena, "Okay."⁹ (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 56–57; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 56–57; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 60(d)-(e); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶¶ 60(d)-(e).) At 4:32 PM, Plaintiff messaged Mena, in Spanish, what the parties agree states, "I just spoke to lo's he told me that he will call me after 5:00 p.m." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 58; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 58; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 60(f); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 60(f).) Defendants believe these are coded messages about plans for the attempted robbery.

Around 8:44 PM, Mena messaged Plaintiff stating in Spanish, "Socio, yay yo tengo un tiguere que puede vajar pa ya conmigo.[ ] Yo le dije que nadamas le podia dar 10 por que a mi me iban a dar 20 solamenta." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 59; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 59.) The parties dispute the translation of the Spanish word "tiguere," but agree that the message otherwise said, "Partner, I already have a dude that can travel over there with me. I told him that I can only give him 10 because I was only going to get 20." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 59; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 59; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 60(g); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 60(g).) Fifteen minutes later, Plaintiff messaged Mena, "I think 10 dollars an hour is fair, please let him know that it's only for a couple weeks, until my wife recovers from surgery thanks." (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 60; Pl. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 60; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 60(h); Defs. Resp. 56.1 ¶ 60(h).)

d. The robbery investigation

Defendant Bonilla was assigned as the lead detective investigating Yoshida's robbery-kidnapping. (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 17.) Defendant Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") Gerdes was assigned to handle any prosecution arising from the...