Cassidy v. N.Y. State Ins. Fund

1

ROBERT CRAIG CASSIDY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND; WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD; LETITIA JAMES; BRIAN W. MATULA; JOSEPH SLATER; KELSEY LYNN RAGA; FREIDA FOSTER; ELLEN O. PAPROCKI; LINDA HULL; FREDERICK M. AUSILI; LORAN LOBBAN; STEVEN A. CRAIN; MARK R. STASKO; SAMUAL G. WILLIAMS; MARK HIGGINS; and DARLENE DORSETT, Defendants.

No. 8:21-CV-0521 (GTS/CFH)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 7, 2023

APPEARANCES:

ROBERT CRAIG CASSIDY Plaintiff, Pro Se

HON LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for State Defendants Other than Dorsett The Capitol

DARLENE DORSETT Defendant, Pro Se E Martin Agency Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

JOHN F. MOORE, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General

DECISION AND ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Currently before the court, in this action filed pro se by Plaintiff Robert Craig Cassidy (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants New York State Insurance Fund (“NYSIF”), New York State Worker's Compensation Board (“WCB”), Attorney General of New York Letitia James, Brian M. Matula, Joseph Slater, Kelsey Lynn Raga, Freida Foster, Ellen O. Paprocki Linda Hull, Frederick M. Ausill, Loran Lobban, Steven A. Crain, Mark R. Stasko, Samual G. Williams, Mark Higgins, and Darlene Dorsett^[1] (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and/or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (5), and (6). (Dkt. No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint^[2]

Generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff is a Vermont resident and owner of Mountain Time Auctions, Antiques, and Mattresses, a business located in Ticonderoga, New York. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 7, 9 [“Compl.”]). Plaintiff purchased the business in or around 2015 from the previous owner, Richard Harker (“Mr. Harker”). (Id., ¶¶ 9-10.) Mr. Harker had maintained a New York State workers' compensation policy with Defendant Darlene Dorsett (“Defendant Dorsett”), an insurance broker and owner of L. Stockton Martin Agency in Ticonderoga. (Id., ¶ 9.) From the 2015 purchase through May 2016, Plaintiff attempted to add his own name and address to the policy and have Mr. Harker's information removed. (Id., ¶ 10.) Throughout that time, although the policy remained in Mr. Harker's name, Plaintiff continued paying the premiums. (Id.) Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Dorsett had cancelled Mr. Harker's insurance policy, effective June 23, 2016. (Compl., ¶ 11.) On June 2, 2016, WCB issued a $12,000.00 penalty against Plaintiff pursuant to N.Y. W.C.L. § 52(5). (Id. ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 1-1, at 3.) WCB alleged that Plaintiff failed to carry workers' compensation insurance, as required under state law. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the penalty. (Id., ¶ 9.) In or around February 2018, WCB informed Plaintiff that a $22,500.00 judgment existed against him. (Id., ¶ 12.)

Based on these factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts two causes of action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, Plaintiff claims that WCB violated the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause by failing to have a “judicial hearing” prior to levying the initial $12,000.00 penalty. (Compl., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff alleges that “WCB took 90 days to not consider the appeal” and that, in the interim, the penalty increased by $6,000.00. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “there was no post deprivation relief” because WCB refused consideration of the appeal while he remained “Not In Compliance.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he “would have to forfeit $18,000.00 to even have his appeal considered, not by a Court but by WCB bureaucrats.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that “statutory penalties are assigned by the legislature not a court” and that “[t]he absence of judicial involvement is Constitutionally fatal” to the judgment against him. (Id., ¶ 23.)

In Plaintiff's second claim, he invokes the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff claims that that the workers' compensation policy at-issue is a “contract,” and Defendants have impaired or interfered with the contract's obligations. (Id., at 30-41.)

As relief, Plaintiff requests that “the Court issue a temporary restraining order halting the issuance of not in compliance IC-2 penalties from a Constitutionally repugnant ‘. . . system designed, operated, and maintained by [WCB].'” (Compl. ¶ 47.) Furthermore, Plaintiff “requests trial by jury to determine financial compensation, if any, due Plaintiff [sic] for losses inflicted upon him by Defendants.” (Id., at 20.) Plaintiff alleges that his “building at 105 Montcalm Street in Ticonderoga . . . has been lost to Plaintiff due to the unconstitutional actions of Defendants, and is appraised by the Town of Ticonderoga at $124,000.00.” (Id., ¶ 7.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that “all in all,” he had sustained damages due to Defendants' action in the range of $300,000. (Id.)

B. Cassidy I

On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se action in the Northern District of New York against numerous WCB and NYSIF members and employees. Cassidy v. Rodriguez, et al., No. 18-CV-0394-DJS (“Cassidy I”). Plaintiff named several defendants who are named in this action-to wit: NYSIF, WCB, Steven Crain, Freida Foster, Mark Higgins, Linda Hull, Loren Lobban, Ellen Paprocki, Samuel G. Williams, and Mark Stasko. (Id.) As he has in the current matter, Plaintiff asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him due process and imposing excessive fines in connection with the 2016 penalty. (Id.) On September 30, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart issued a Decision and Order dismissing the case on the merits via summary judgment.^[3]Cassidy v. Rodriguez, et al., No. 18-CV-0394-DJS, 2022 WL 5028089 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) (Stewart, M.J.), affirmed, 2023 WL 408944 (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2023) (summary order).

C. Parties' Briefing on Defendant's Motion

1. Defendants' Memorandum of Law

Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 19.) Defendants argue that sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff's claims against WBC and NYSIF and the individual defendants in their official capacities. (Dkt. No. 19-2, at 13-17.) Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations. (Id., at 18-20.) In any event, Defendants argue that they were not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. (Id., at 20-25.) As to Plaintiff's Bill of Attainder claim, Defendants argue that the Complaint does not sufficiently allege the necessary “specificity” and “punishment” elements. (Id., at 25-34.) Similarly, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show “lack of judicial trial.” (Id.) As to Plaintiff's Contracts Clause claim, Defendants argue that no state law “substantially impaired” an existing contractual obligation, and that, even assuming as much, a “legitimate public purpose” justifies such impairment. (Id., at 34-37.) Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not yet served Defendants James and Matula. (Id., at 9, n.1.)

2. Plaintiff's Opposition

Plaintiff's opposition mainly argues that Defendants have improperly presented matters outside the pleadings, particularly Defendants' citations to Cassidy I. (Dkt. No. 24, at 2.) Similarly, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion papers are procedurally deficient because they lack a Statement of Material Facts supported by record citations pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. (Id., at 2-4.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants rely upon untrue factual assertions and falsely sworn affirmations. (Id., at 5.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations because they were, inter alia, aware of the actions taken against him. (Id., at 10-12.) Plaintiff argues that he “has never had a pre-deprivation judicial trial” or a “post-deprivation trial.” (Id., at 12.) Plaintiff argues that he has satisfied the “punishment” element for his Bill of Attainder claim via the $22,500.00 penalty exacted upon him. (Id., 13-14.)

3. Defendants' Reply Memorandum of Law

In reply, Defendants argue that a Local Rule 56.1 statement is not required because “Cassidy I is referred to repeatedly in Plaintiff's Complaint” and that “Plaintiff named numerous defendants identical to those in this case.” (Dkt. No. 29, at 6.) Defendants argue that “Plaintiff does not make any direct argument to counter [their] motion on the grounds that his claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” (Id., at 7.) Similarly, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff makes no argument to counter [their] argument that [the Bill of Attainder Clause] specifies the ‘State' and a ‘legislative act,' and thus none of the individual defendants here could be held liable[.]” (Id., at 10.)

4. Plaintiff's Sur-Reply

Plaintiff filed a sur-reply with permission from the Court. (Dkt. No. 32.) Plaintiff again argues that Local Rule 56.1 requires Defendants to present a “Statement of Material Facts” and that “[p]leadings from other cases on other issues” are not properly a part of the record herein. (Dkt. No. 33, at 2.) Plaintiff argues that he “must be given his chance to admit, deny, or rebut” Defendants' assertions, and that this case should proceed to discovery in light of the factual disputes. (Id.)

II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

“It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”...