Holmes v. City of N.Y.

TYRONE HOLMES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE RODRIGO CABALLERO,in his individual and official capacity, SERGEANT MARLON MING, in his individual and official capacity,CITY OF KENNER (LOUISIANA), OFFICER CHARLES DONOVAN, in his individual and official capacity, APPLE, INC.,AMAZON.COM, INC., CHECKPOINT FLUIDIC SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., also known as CheckPoint Pumpsand Systems, RUSTY MAHONY, in his individual and official capacity, FEDEX CORPORATION,and KENNETH MEYER, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

19 Civ. 1628 (ER)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 26, 2020

OPINION & ORDER

RAMOS, D.J.:

Tyrone Holmes, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on February 21, 2019 against the City of New York (the "City"), the New York Police Department (the "NYPD"), and New York police officers Detective Rodrigo Caballero and Sergeant Marlon Ming, in their individual and official capacities (the "City Defendants"); the City of Kenner, Louisiana ("Kenner"), and Officer Charles Donovan of the Kenner Police Department, in his individual and official capacity (together, the "Kenner Defendants"); Apple, Inc. ("Apple"); Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon"); CheckPoint Fluidic Systems International, Ltd. ("CheckPoint") and its employee, Rusty Mahony, in his individual and official capacity (together, the "CheckPoint Defendants"); and Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") and its employee, Kenneth Meyer, in his individual and official capacity (the "FedEx Defendants"). Docs. 1, 87. Before the Court are motions to dismiss submitted by each group of defendants, Holmes's cross-motion for summary judgment, and several motions for sanctions against Holmes. Docs. 66, 68, 71, 73, 75, 80, 102.

For the reasons stated below, the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED with prejudice, and the motions for summary judgment and sanctions are DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

The facts alleged in this case are nearly identical to those Holmes posited in his previously filed action against many of the same parties, Holmes v. Apple, No. 17 Civ. 4557 (ER) ("Holmes I"). The Court assumes familiarity with its prior opinion in that case, 2018 WL 3542856 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2018), but will nevertheless restate the pertinent facts, as well as a brief summary of the proceedings in Holmes I.

1. The Operative Complaint

The story begins mundanely enough: On June 22, 2016, Holmes purchased an Apple MacBook Pro from Amazon.com, as well as an AppleCare warranty. Doc. 87 at 5. A computer² was packaged for delivery at Amazon's fulfillment center in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania, and delivered to Holmes on June 23, 2016. Id. That same day, Holmes gave the computer to his wife, Stephanie Scott, who registered for the AppleCare Protection Plan under her own name and began using the computer.

Meanwhile, CheckPoint had purchased a similar laptop from Amazon on June 2, 2016, which it received on or around June 7, 2016. Id. at 3. When it received the computer, CheckPoint installed Kaseya security software (or "spyware," as Holmes calls it) and then mailed the computer via FedEx to an address in Dubai. Id. at 3-4; Doc. 87, Ex. 1 at 4. Holmes alleges that FedEx then delivered the CheckPoint computer to an Amazon fulfillment center in Pennsylvania on or about June 7, 2016. Doc. 87 at 3-4.

On August 2, 2016, FedEx received a report from Defendant Rusty Mahony, an employee at CheckPoint, alerting it that the CheckPoint computer had been stolen in transit to its intended destination. Id. at 5. It had last been scanned on June 7, 2016 at the FedEx location in Kenner, Louisiana. Doc. 87, Ex. 1 at 4. Defendant Kenneth Meyer, a FedEx employee, reported the lost computer to Defendant Officer Charles Donovan of the Kenner Police Department. Doc. 87 at 5. On August 7, 2016, Donovan took the police report, attached as Exhibit 1 to Holmes's complaint, where he noted that Mahony had been able to access the computer each time the suspected user logged onto the internet and had tracked the computer to New York.³ Doc. 87, Ex. 1 at 4. Because of this access, Donovan wrote, Mahony had been able to identify Scott as the user and to download several of her personal documents, including her W-9 tax form, her passport, her debit card, and a photograph. Id. Mahony was also able to download a photograph of Holmes's driver's license. Id. Donovan also noted that Meyer had been in contact with the New York Police Department, who had informed him that it would assist in the investigation if it had an "item number from a law enforcement agency from where the theft occurred." Id. Donovan then had the computer logged as stolen and suspended the case. Id. at 5. Holmes alleges that this was a "false report," and that "FedEx conspired with CheckPoint and fraudulently filed the report knowing that they had delivered thecomputer that they picked up from [C]heck[P]oint on June 7, 2016 to Amazon at an Amazon Fulfillment Center in Pennsylvania." Doc. 87 at 5-6.

Defendant Detective Rodrigo Caballero and others of the NYPD first attempted to contact Holmes about the allegedly stolen computer on or around September 8, 2016. Doc. 87 at 6. Holmes was not home, but they spoke to several neighbors. Id. On September 9, 2016, Caballero called Holmes and advised him that he believed Holmes was "in possession of a 'stolen' laptop that 'belonged to the Department of Defense.'" Id. According to Holmes, he was threatened with four years of imprisonment if he did not surrender the laptop. Id. The NYPD contacted Holmes every day through early October 2016 with the same threats. Id. at 7. He was never served with a search warrant or with a warrant for his arrest. Id.

During this time, Caballero was also in contact with Holmes's attorney, Jeff Garfin. On September 21, 2016, Caballero advised Garfin that he would be proceeding with Holmes's arrest and that Holmes should surrender the following day. Id. Earlier in the month, Garfin had received a letter from CheckPoint, stating that CheckPoint had tracked the computer and knew that it was in Holmes's possession. The letter, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to Holmes's complaint, states, that if the computer "is returned immediately, in its original condition complete with all original parts and pieces, we will not move further to pursue legal action. [CheckPoint] ha[s] no knowledge or interest in identifying your client or learning further about the details, which put him in possession of our equipment." Doc. 87, Ex. 2. In the same letter, CheckPoint advised Garfin that the matter should be resolved through Caballero and that there was no reason for Mr. Holmes "to have any knowledge of our organization or its employees." Id. Based on this letter, Holmes concludes that the NYPD "acted as a security force under color of state law for a private company." Doc. 87 at 8.

Holmes then hired a private investigator to track down the computer he had given his wife.⁴ The computer was eventually recovered.⁵ According to Holmes, he "has been trying to piece his life back together and discover what exactly happened" ever since and has been "diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the episode, has lost nearly all of his business contacts, and is viewed as some sort of criminal by his friends and neighbors." Id.

2. Holmes I

According to Holmes, he filed his first lawsuit, Holmes I, in June 2017, "as it appeared to be the only way to get answers as to why his life had been completely dismantled by these companies." Id. at 8-9. There, he also sued Apple, Amazon.com, LLC, and CheckPoint (but not Mahony), bringing claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, fraud in the inducement and misrepresentation, and false advertising and unfair business practices. Holmes I, 2018 WL 3542856, at *3. Defendants all moved to dismiss the complaint. CheckPoint moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction; Apple moved for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, summary judgment; and Amazon asked the Court to enter judgment against it on the breach of contract claim and to dismiss the remaining claims or, in the alternative, to enter summary judgment in its favor on all claims. Id. at *1.

The Court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction over CheckPoint because it had no physical presence in New York and because Holmes had not alleged that CheckPoint's actions amounted to a tortious act, so as to fall within New York's personal jurisdiction statute. Id. at *6. It also granted Apple's motion for judgment onthe pleadings, finding that: (1) Holmes did not have a contract with Apple for the sale of a new laptop and the AppleCare agreement was irrelevant to the dispute; (2) Holmes failed to state a claim for implied warranty, negligence, and strict liability because CheckPoint, not Apple, had installed the Kaseya software; (3) he did not state his claim for fraud with particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (4) he failed to allege consumer-oriented conduct as required for a claim for false advertising and unfair business practices under New York General Business Law § 349. Id. at *7-10. The Court likewise entered judgment for Amazon on three of the claims, granted summary judgment in its favor on four others, and, at its request, entered judgment against it on the breach of contract claim for the price of the laptop. Id. at *10-14. At the same time, Holmes moved to add FedEx as a defendant, but the Court denied that request as futile. Id. at *14-15.

This Court made several additional findings in Holmes I that are pertinent to this case. For example, in granting summary judgment for Amazon, the Court found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the laptop Amazon delivered to Holmes and the laptop belonging to CheckPoint were,...