Stefanoni v. Darien Little League, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 April 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:13–cv–1234 VAB.
• Citation: 101 F.Supp.3d 160
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: Christopher STEFANONI, Plaintiff, v. DARIEN LITTLE LEAGUE, INC., Little League Baseball, Inc., Tony Farren, David Williams, Ronald Drake, and Todd Boe, Defendants.

101 F.Supp.3d 160

Christopher STEFANONI, Plaintiff,

v.DARIEN LITTLE LEAGUE, INC., Little League Baseball, Inc., Tony Farren, David Williams, Ronald Drake, and Todd Boe, Defendants.

Case No. 3:13–cv–1234 VAB.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

Signed April 27, 2015.

Christopher Stefanoni, Darien, CT, pro se.

James John Healy, Cowdery & Murphy, LLC, Hartford, CT, Michelle M. Arbitrio, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

VICTOR A. BOLDEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, Mr. Christopher Stefanoni, alleges that the Darien Little League, its national chartering organization Little League Baseball, Inc., and four individuals, Todd Boe, David Williams, Ronald Drake, and Tony Farren¹violated Sections 1981, 1983and 1985(3)by “banning” him as a coach from the Darien Little League and “demoting” his son to play on a lower level team in the League. Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 46; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3). He alleges that Defendants sought to deter him from building affordable housing in Darien, Connecticut and prevent him from increasing the African–American population of Darien.

Before the Court is Defendants' Second Motion To Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Defs.' Second Mot. To Dismiss, ECF No. 50. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state plausible Section 1981, 1983or 1985(3)claims and GRANTSDefendants' Motion to Dismiss on all counts.

In sum, Mr. Stefanoni's lawsuit must be dismissed for two reasons. First, none of the Defendants in this case are state actors within the meaning of Section 1983and 1985(3)and therefore, they cannot be sued under these statutes. Second, a Section 1981claim cannot be sustained here by only alleging that the Defendants opposed affordable housing in Darien. Mr. Stefanoni also had to allege that they opposed affordable housing in Darien because it would result in more African–American residents in the Town and support this allegation with specific facts and not just conclusory statements. Significantly, for many of the Defendants, he failed to allege that they even opposed affordable housing in Darien, much less that they did so for racially based reasons.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Darien Little League is a Connecticut corporation that runs a youth baseball league in Darien, Connecticut. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 46. The Darien Little League is chartered by Little League Baseball, Inc., a national organization based in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania that charters Little League baseball organizations “throughout the world.” Id.¶¶ 4–5. Plaintiff, Mr. Christopher Stefanoni, and his wife and proposed intervenor in this action, Mrs. Margaret Stefanoni, have three sons who have played baseball in the Darien Little League since 2004. Id.¶¶ 32, 35.

Mr. Stefanoni has coached “more than 35 Little League games” and alleges that he had been selected to coach Darien Little League games during the Fall 2010 season. Id.¶¶ 32, 51. He claims that Darien Little League structures its teams “according to age and ability,” with the “AA” level for children in second grade, “AAA” for children ages 8 and older, “Minors” for children ages 9 to 11, and “Majors” for children ages 10 to 12. Id.¶ 36. Tryouts for AAA, Minors, and Majors are held in the Spring of each year. Id.¶ 37.

Mr. Stefanoni also alleges that his son was selected to play at the Minors level of the Darien Little League during the Spring of 2010 and played 44 games at that level during the Spring and Summer of 2010. Id.¶ 38. He claims that his son was appropriately placed at the Minor level on the first day of the Fall 2010 season, August 26, 2010, but was inappropriately “demoted” one day later to play with AA and AAA level players for the duration of the Fall season. Id.¶¶ 9, 41–42. Defendant David Williams, a member of the Darien Little League Board of Directors and the Commissioner of Fall Baseball at the time, informed him of this decision. Id.¶¶ 42. Mr. Stefanoni alleges that this decision was a “completely unprecedented and unwarranted retaliatory action” against him. Id.¶¶ 43–45.

Mr. Stefanoni and his wife appealed the decision to “demote” their son to various individuals affiliated with the Darien Little League and Little League Baseball, Inc., including Defendant Tony Farren as well as Scott Miller, who at the time was the head of Connecticut's Little League District 1, which oversees the various Little League organizations of certain Connecticut towns including Darien.Id.¶¶ 46–47. Mr. Stefanoni alleges that they refused to reverse the decision and insisted that the roster in the Minors was too large to accommodate his son. Id.¶¶ 46–50. Mr. Stefanoni believes this reason to be pretextual because his son was “demoted” to a team with 15 players, and many other Darien Little League teams had roster sizes of 14 or 15. Id.¶¶ 49–50.

“To prevent further humiliation of being singled out, demoted and excluded,” Mr. Stefanoni alleges that he withdrew his son from Darien Little League's Fall Program. Id.¶ 51. He also did not coach during Fall 2010 “even though he had been deemed in good standing to coach and selected as a coach for that season.” Id.He was subsequently “banned” from coaching Darien Little League on March 4, 2011 because, he was told by Defendant Drake, he was considered a “ ‘lightning rod’ in the community.” Id.¶¶ 51, 57–58.²After he was “banned,” Mr. Stefanoni alleges that his wife forwarded a package of documents to Little League Baseball, Inc. explaining what had happened to him and their son, and that the national organization did nothing to correct these so-called misdeeds. Id.¶¶ 60–61.

Mr. Stefanoni alleges that the Darien Little League took these actions against him and his son “for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, and retaliating” against him and his family for efforts to develop a particular plot of land on Hoyt Street into affordable housing. Id.¶ 67. He seeks damages for the “economic losses and emotional distress” he claims to have suffered as a result. Id.¶ 68.

Mr. and Mrs. Stefanoni are real estate developers who have sought permits since 2005 to build affordable housing in Darien. Id.¶ 14.³Mr. Stefanoni alleges that the construction of such affordable housing “will lead directly to an increase” in the town's population of African Americans and that Darien is “a white enclave” with “a long history of exclusionary housing practices that discourage African Americans from residing in the town.” Id.¶¶ 12–13, 15–16, 21 (citing statistics showing that Darien has a significantly smaller population of African Americans than neighboring Connecticut towns).⁴These exclusionary “practices,” as alleged in the Complaint, include keeping costs of housing “prohibitively high” and “preventing the construction of affordable housing units.” Id.¶ 16. Mr. Stefanoni further alleges that members of the Darien community “widely perceive [ ]” his family's efforts to develop affordable housing “as an attempt to open up housing opportunities in Darien to African Americans.” Id.¶ 21. He adds that the statute under which he seeks to develop affordable housing requires that such housing be “affirmatively marketed to minorities.” Id.¶ 16 (citing Conn. Gen.Stat. § 8–30g).

Mr. Stefanoni alleges that, in late December 2009, he purchased two pieces of property in Darien that he intended to develop into affordable housing, and that the Darien community knew that was his intention. Id.¶¶ 22–23. In particular, the property purchased at Hoyt Street abutted the property of Mark Gregory, whose son had played in the Darien Little League and who was a member of its Board of Directors from 2004 to 2009. Id.¶¶ 24–26. Mr. Gregory was originally a named Defendant in this case but was removed from the Second Amended Complaint. CompareSecond Am. Compl., ECF No. 46, withCompl., ECF No. 1.⁵Mr. Stefanoni alleges that “soon after” he purchased these two properties and, by late February 2010, then First Selectman David Campbell “desperately,” “secretly,” and ultimately unsuccessfully sought a moratorium on the granting of permits to build affordable housing. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 29–31, ECF No. 46. Mr. Stefanoni also alleges that Mr. Gregory was actively and “adamantly opposed” to his family's efforts to “develop housing next door to his residence.” Id.¶ 28.

Mr. Stefanoni claims that the Darien Little League's “demotion” of his son and “ban” of him as a coach occurred at the same time as certain developments in his application for a permit to build affordable housing at the Hoyt Street property. Mr. Stefanoni submitted an affordable housing application for Hoyt Street on August 20, 2010. Id.¶ 40. He alleges that his son was placed on the Minors team initially for the Fall season on August 26, 2010, but was taken off the team one day later, on August 27. Id.¶¶ 41–42. Mr. Stefanoni also indicates that Darien Little League's “ban” of him as a coach occurred “a few days prior to the official release of the already public decision” to approve his application to develop affordable housing at Hoyt Street. Id.¶ 57. He alleges that Tom Luz, then counsel to Darien Little League, “falsely and maliciously” made a public comment that the coaching “ban” was the organization's reaction to some “incidents on the field” and not to the issuance of a permit to build affordable housing. Id.¶¶ 58–59.

After his son's “demotion,” Mr. Stefanoni also alleges that he received e-mails from Defendant Todd Boe, a former Board member of the Darien Little League, on September 15 and 16, 2010, expressing anger about the possibility of developing the Hoyt Street property into affordable housing. Id.¶ 52. As characterized by the Complaint, the e-mails note “I GAVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, BUT YOU ARE TRULY EXTORTIONISTS. THINK ABOUT WHAT...