Farquharson v. Lafayette

DELIA M. FARQUHARSON, Plaintiff, v. REGINALD A. LAFAYETTE, DOUGLAS A. COLETY, JEANINE L. PALAZOLA, DOROTHY L. DIPALO, andWESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION, Defendants.

No. 19-cv-3446 (NSR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

April 7, 2020

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Delia M. Farquharson ("Plaintiff") brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against Defendants Reginald A. Lafayette ("Lafayette"), Douglas A. Colety, Jeannie L. Palazola, s/h/a Jeanine L. Palazola, Dorothy L. DiPalo (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and Westchester County Board of Elections ("BOE") (collectively, "Defendants"). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied her an opportunity to run for Mayor of Mount Vernon, New York, in deprivation of her First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id.) Plaintiff also asserts several state-law claims. (Id.)

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 32.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint and accompanying exhibits and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion.

A. Lafayette's Alleged History of Targeting Plaintiff

The allegations underlying Plaintiff's complaint primarily center around a long running and contentious relationship between Plaintiff and Lafayette. To this end, Plaintiff is a City Councilor in Mount Vernon and of Jamaican descent, while Lafayette is the Chairman and Commissioner of the BOE and the Chairman of the Mount Vernon Democratic Committee ("MVDC"). (Compl. ¶ 4.)

According to Plaintiff, Lafayette wields tremendous power as Commissioner of MVDC. For example, Plaintiff avers that, on July 27, 2015, Maria Caraballo, a two-time City Council candidate in Mount Vernon, stated in "Black Westchester Magazine" that Lafayette "[c]ontrols Mt. Vernon Politics." (Id. ¶ 11 (internal quotations omitted).) Caraballo explained that "if you are not liked by Reggie Lafayette, you are not going to be elected. There will never be an election in Mt. Vernon[] that will not be fixed as long as Reggie Lafayette is in office." (Id. (internal quotations omitted).) According to Plaintiff, during his time as commissioner, Lafayette has made disparaging remarks regarding individuals of West Indian descent (particularly Jamaicans) during public meetings. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 11¹.)

Plaintiff contends that Lafayette also routinely targeted Plaintiff during political events and nomination processes. (Id. ¶ 12.) For example, during the 2017 MVDC nomination process, Lafayette succeeded in installing Marcus Griffith in Plaintiff's place, even though Plaintiff had already been voted to be a nominee. (Id. ¶ 13.) The next year, in 2018, Lafayette delivered a message about "people wanting to be elected but not understanding how things work" in response to Plaintiff's expressing an intention to assume the role of City Council President. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiff and Lafayette's contentious history persisted into 2019. Specifically, on January 2, 2019, at a City Council committee meeting attended by Plaintiff and Lafayette (who is not a City Council member), Lafayette "looked directly at Plaintiff" as she entered the meeting and asked, "[A]re we going to have a smooth night[?]" (Id. ¶ 15.) This question was purportedly in reference to Plaintiff's plan to speak about the political properness of some of the City Council nominations.(Id.) When asked for clarification, Lafayette responded, "[A]m I going to have to respond to anything as commissioner." (Id.) Then, during the meeting, Lafayette "placed himself in the direct vicinity of Plaintiff," thereby making her feel uncomfortable both in her official and personal capacity. (Id.)

B. Plaintiff Files Untimely Petitions and Defendants Refuse to Return Them

On or around February 7, 2019, Plaintiff completed all filing requirements to run for Mayor of Mount Vernon. (Id. ¶ 16.) Thereafter, in conjunction with at least six team members, Plaintiff collected 985 signatures from members of the Mount Vernon community (the "Petitions"). (Id. ¶ 17.)

On March 19, 2019 Plaintiff went to BOE with her Petitions. (Id. ¶ 18.) When she arrived, the clerk informed Plaintiff that the filing period in New York was from April 1, to April 4, 2019. (Id.) In response, Plaintiff asked the clerk if BOE would accept Plaintiff's Petitions for review, notwithstanding the deadline. (Id.) The clerk called Lafayette, who was in a back office of BOE, and informed him that Plaintiff was "here to submit petitions." (Id.) The clerk took the Petitions and went to the back office to meet with Lafayette. (Id.) At some point, either during the call or meeting, Lafayette decided, or authorized the clerk to decide, to take Plaintiff's Petitions. (Id. ¶ 19.) The clerk stamped the Petitions and made copies to distribute to Plaintiff. (Id.)

Shortly after, Plaintiff heard from community members that BOE planned to invalidate the Petitions. (Id. ¶ 20.) She further learned that BOE was planning to invalidate any signatures on the Petitions. (Id. ¶ 27.) As a result, on March 25, 2019, Plaintiff returned to BOE to obtain her Petitions.² (Id. ¶ 21.) Then, on March 27, 2019, Plaintiff received a call from Taijan Nelson, which informed Plaintiff that BOE had sent a letter, dated March 25, 2019, to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 22.)

In that letter, BOE informed Plaintiff that "[a]fter a prima facie examination of [the Petitions] purporting to nominate [Plaintiff] as a candidate for Mayor in the City of Mount Vernon, it was determined that the Petition . . . was not timely filed." (Id. Ex. A; see also id. ¶ 23.) BOE cited Section 6-158(1) of the New York State Election Law ("N.Y.E.L."), which established April 1, 2019 as the earliest date to file designating petitions. (Id. Ex. I.) BOE then noted that failure to file a petition within this timeframe "[was] a fatal defect." (Id.) BOE thus determined that Plaintiff's Petitions were "invalid" and informed her that her name would not appear on the Democratic Party ballot for Mayor of Mount Vernon primary election. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that, notwithstanding the letter's conclusion, BOE was not aware of what Plaintiff was going to do with her Petitions on or before April 1, 2019. (Id. ¶ 25.)

Plaintiff responded to BOE's letter on March 27, 2019. (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff, through her counsel, informed BOE that the letter had "legal issues" and, in turn, urged for the BOE to reconsider its decision or provide Plaintiff with a hearing. (Id.) In the letter, Plaintiff acknowledged that Plaintiff's "Petitions were filed early" but argued that she nevertheless had a "timely claim to cure the violation[] and [was] entitled to attempt to do so."³ (Id. Ex. II.)

The next day, on March 28, 2019, Plaintiff, her team members, and her attorney went to BOE in person. (Id. ¶ 28.) During the meeting, Lafayette laid out his concern with accepting Plaintiff's untimely Petition, explaining that "a major problem, [which] nobody can get a handle on, is a lot of people backdate signatures." (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff then asked Lafayette why BOE accepted her Petitions if it knew it would later invalidate them. (Id. ¶ 30.) Lafayette explained that the Petitions were "already turned in by the time [the clerk] went to the back to speak with [him]." (Id.) Plaintiff,however, corrected him, noting that the Petitions were "unstamped" at that moment. (Id.) Although Plaintiff does not provide further details, she notes that "[n]o BOE hearing was ever scheduled by the BOE" regarding the Petitions. (Id. ¶ 31.)

C. Plaintiff Files an Amended Cover Sheet but Remains Off the Primary Ballot

Notwithstanding her untimely March filing, Plaintiff timely filed an amended cover sheet for her Petitions on April 1, 2019. (Id. ¶ 32.) Upon this now-timely filing, Specific Objections ("Specs") to Plaintiff's petitions were lodged, some allegedly after the filing deadline was complete. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff maintains that these Specs came from individuals "affiliated with Lafayette." (Id.)

Plaintiff and her attorney eventually confronted Lafayette and told him that they believed BOE was engaged in illegal activity. (Id.) Plaintiff then asked Lafayette what dates he was using to determine whether the Specs were timely filed. (Id.) In that conversation, Plaintiff and Lafayette disputed whether one Spec at issue was filed on the fourth or eighth of April. (Id.) As it relates to this Spec, Lafayette explained that, although there was a Spec dated April 4th, a new Spec was timely filed on April 8th after Plaintiff again amended her Petition cover sheet. (Id.) Lafayette insisted that this was proper because "[o]nce [Plaintiff] amend[e]d [her Petition], [the time to file Specs] starts all over again." (Id.) At some point during this conversation, Lafayette then noted that Plaintiff had "time to even correct [her] mistakes" but the filing had to be kept by BOE. (Id.)

Plaintiff argues that Lafayette admitted that "Plaintiff's process of amending the cover sheet for [her] Petitions was proper, and that the process that the BOE engaged in prior to April 1, 2019 regarding the attempt to rule the Petitions out of the elections before giving an opportunity to amend the cover letter or cure the petitions was per se illegal." (Id. ¶ 34.) Plaintiff further avers that Lafayette "understood more than any other person" how a candidate could modify petitions until the filing deadline concluded but nevertheless "blocked" Plaintiff from running for office. (Id. ¶ 35.) BOE, according to Plaintiff, was "complicit" by failing to stop Lafayette's activity. (Id.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. 12(b)(1)

When a court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case, it should dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2011). "A plain...