Teitlebaum v. O'Neil
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal,Vermont |
| Parties | YISROEL TEITLEBAUM, Plaintiff, v. RYAN P. O'NEIL, JENNIFER NILSEN, ERIC POTTER, DAVID BOLIVER, TOWN OF WILMINGTON SELECTBOARD and TOWN OF WILMINGTON, FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION LLC, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 2024 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
| Docket Number | 2:23-cv-88 |
Plaintiff Yisroel Teitlebaum purchased a property in Wilmington Vermont in June of 2021 (“the Property”). Since that time, he and his family have hosted large groups of people and practiced Judaism on the Property. Teitlebaum has filed this lawsuit against his neighbors, Jennifer Nilsen Eric Potter, and David Boliver, as well as the Town of Wilmington, the Town of Wilmington Selectboard, and police officer Ryan P. O'Neil, alleging a pattern of intrusive and anti-Semitic acts. Nilsen and Potter have filed motions to dismiss. Taking all of the facts in the Complaint as true, the Court concludes that Nilsen's and Potter's actions are insufficient to support Teitlebaum's causes of action for nuisance and intrusion upon seclusion.
Teitlebaum filed this lawsuit against three of his Vermont neighbors, two Town of Wilmington entities, and a Wilmington police officer. Two of the neighbors filed motions to dismiss. ECF No. 38 (); ECF No. 46-1 (). The Amended Complaint makes clear that Teitlebaum only seeks to bring claims for intrusion upon seclusion and nuisance (Counts VII and VIII) against Defendants Nilsen and Potter; the remaining counts are specific to other named defendants.[1]
Teitlebaum and his family are observant and practicing Jews with many relatives. ECF No. 33 at 5. They live in Connecticut, and while it is not immediately clear from the Amended Complaint, seem to use the Property as a vacation home.
According to the Amended Complaint, the Property was built in the 1960s by Alf Nilsen (Defendant Jennifer Nilsen's fatherin-law). ECF No. 33 at 3. It was used as an inn and for large group housing by Alf Nilsen and several other owners until Teitlebaum purchased the Property on June 9, 2021. ECF No. 33 at 4. Defendants Nilsen and Potter own adjacent properties.
Teitlebaum states that Nilsen and Potter engaged in a series of harassing and interfering actions, including complaining to the Town about large groups of people on the Property (which they allegedly never did before Teitlebaum's purchase). ECF No. 33 at 4. He asserts that Nilsen, Potter, and Boliver have filed “more than fourteen complaints” since he occupied the Property.[2]Teitlebaum notes that several of the complaints referenced his religion, and states that they constituted “baseless harassment designed to interfere with Mr. Teitlebaum's privacy and Mr. Teitlebaum's use of his Property.” ECF No. 33 at 13.
In addition to the law enforcement complaints, Teitlebaum alleges that Nilsen and Potter committed several acts that contribute to his nuisance and intrusion upon seclusion claims. This includes his assertion that on multiple occasions Nilsen and Potter made audio and video recordings of his activities on the Property. ECF No. 33 at 13. Additional allegations are detailed below.
Nilsen and Potter filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Teitlebaum responded to both, and neither defendant filed a reply brief. None of the other defendants moved to dismiss. Both Nilsen's and Potter's motions are ripe for the Court.
Nilsen filed complaints with the Town Zoning Authority (“TZA”) on May 7 and 13, 2022, and with the Town Manager on May 16. ECF No. 33 at 9.[3]The last of these involved a complaint about “the noise from 50+ people” staying at the Property, including children “screaming and yelling” while playing. ECF No. 33 at 10. None of these complaints led to any Town law enforcement action. Nilsen made another complaint on June 2, 2022, which “intimated” that the Town should take action against Teitlebaum (although it did not do so). ECF No. 33 at 11-12. Notably, these complaints were filed nearly a year after Teitlebaum purchased the Property.
Teitlebaum also alleges that Nilsen was hostile towards his guests on several occasions. Specifically, he states that on September 24, 2022, two guests wearing traditional Jewish attire went for a walk on a public road when they encountered Nilsen and another woman walking large dogs. The dogs allegedly barked and came close to the guests, who requested that Nilsen leash the dogs. Nilsen then responded “well maybe you shouldn't be on this road.” ECF No. 33 at 15. On a separate occasion, Nilsen allegedly interacted with Teitlebaum's guests and told them to “go back where you came from.” ECF No. 33 at 15.
Teitlebaum alleges that on June 20, 2021 - just eleven days after he purchased the Property - Potter and Boliver filed complaints with the Wilmington Police regarding a Jewish ritual that involved Teitlebaum bathing naked. ECF No. 33 at 6. Boliver's complaint allegedly used the phrase “members of the Jewish community.” ECF No. 33 at 6. Potter and Boliver's complaint caused the Wilmington Police to visit Teitlebaum's Property, but that visit did not lead to any citation or charge. ECF No. 33 at 7.
Potter complained to the Town Manager two days later (June 22, 2021) and again the following day (June 23, 2021). ECF No. 33 at 7. These complaints made explicit reference to Teitlebaum's religion, calling Teitlebaum “[Hasidic] Jewish” and explaining that a “[Hasidic] Jewish camp” was operating on the Property. ECF No. 33 at 8. This caused the Town of Wilmington to send Teitlebaum a notice of “zoning compliance concern” on June 25, 2021, expressing apprehension that “up to 60 youth campers” would be on the Property over the summer. ECF No. 33 at 8. According to the Amended Complaint, authorities sent this notice to the wrong address. Nonetheless, on July 1, Vermont Department of Health Public Inspection Manager Andrew Chevrefils allegedly told Teitlebaum that “as currently operated,” he would “not need a license” to operate a lodging establishment or children's camp on the Property. ECF No. 33 at 8.
The TZA tried to serve Teitlebaum with another notice of alleged violation on August 31, but again delivered it to the wrong address. The TZA later contacted Teitlebaum‘s attorney regarding the alleged zoning violations, at which point Teitlebaum “promptly complied with the Town directive to file an application with the Development Review Board.” ECF No. 33 at 9.
Potter allegedly filed additional complaints with the Town Manager on March 9, 2022 and with the TZA on May 16, 2022. The Amended Complaint does not state what motivated these complaints. Neither led to any Town enforcement action or contact with law enforcement, but Potter's May 16 complaint explained his belief that the Town should “police the situation over at” Teitlebaum's Property. ECF No. 33 at 11.
On May 26, 2022, Potter complained to the Wilmington Police about “a large gathering” on Teitlebaum's Property that Potter found too noisy. ECF No. 33 at 11. This led to a visit from the police, but no citation or charge. Potter allegedly complained again the following day, which did not lead to any enforcement action.
On June 12, 2022, Potter and Boliver filed another complaint. According to a police summary of the complaint, ECF No. 33 at 12. This allegedly prompted Wilmington law enforcement to contact Teitlebaum, but again did not result in a citation or charge. Finally, on September 24, Potter complained to the police that Teitlebaum was committing a “light ordinance” violation on his Property, which did not result in any law enforcement action.
Teitlebaum also claims that during a conversation with Potter attempting to resolve their differences, Potter “demanded that Mr. Teitlebaum agree to a self-imposed ordinance of no noise whatsoever after 4:00 p.m.” ECF No. 33 at 12. Potter also allegedly told Teitlebaum that he did not respect Teitlebaum moving into Wilmington without attempting to be like the locals, and said that he would “blast” music by the artist Limp Bizkit so that people on Teitlebaum's Property would hear “a whole lot of f-bombs.” ECF No. 33 at 12.
Finally, Teitlebaum states that on September 3, 2022, Potter and Boliver filed a noise complaint that led to an anti Semitic reaction by Wilmington Police Officer O'Neil. ECF No. 33 at 16. After responding to Teitlebaum's house, O'Neil allegedly encountered Nilsen on the public road and interviewed her about the noise. Nilsen made a written statement and expressed satisfaction that Teitlebaum would face “adverse consequences.”
ECF No. 33 at 21. Potter and several other individuals also provided written statements about the noise complaint. ECF No. 33 at 21.
To withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “To state a plausible claim, the complaint's ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'” Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 762 F.3d 214, 218 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a motion to dismiss filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial