Hoyos v. City of Stamford

BARBARA HOYOS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF STAMFORD, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:19-cv-01249 (VLB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

September 20, 2021

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, [ECF NO. 46]

Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge

This action is brought by Plaintiff Barbara Hoyos against the City of Stamford and several Stamford police officials; namely Sergeants Kevin Keenan and Jennifer Lynch, and Officers Kiana Oliva, Andrew Czubatyj, and Michael Califano, for alleged improprieties associated with Plaintiff's arrest on the morning of July 14, 2017. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for deprivation of her federal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest against all individual defendants (Count One); deprivation of her federal rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution against Defendants Oliva, Keenan, and Lynch (Count Two); malicious prosecution under the laws of the State of Connecticut against Defendants Oliva, Keenan, and Lynch (Count Three) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Oliva and Keenan (Count Four); negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Oliva and Keenan (Count Five); and Monell liability against the Defendant City of Stamford for failure to train, supervise and/or discipline the Defendant officers involved (Count Six). [ECF No. 45 (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)]. Plaintiff also asserts that the City is liable for the negligent acts of its employees under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-557n and that the City of Stamford is required to indemnify its employees who caused physical injury to the plaintiff and/or violated her civil rights under Connecticut General Statutes § 7-465 (Count Seven). [ECF No. 45 (SAC)].

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts of the Second Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 46]. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. MATERIAL FACTS

The Court draws the following facts from the Parties' Local Rule 56(a) Statements of Material Facts as supported by evidence in the record.

Plaintiff called the City of Stamford 911 Emergency Communication Center (“ECC”) on July 14, 2017 at 1:16 in the morning. [ECF No. 50 (Defendants' Revised Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Material Facts) (“Defs.' Stmt.”) ¶ 1 (citing Defendants' Exhibit B (Affidavit of ECC Director Joseph Gaudett) Exhibit 3 (Incident Detail Report) ECF No. 46-3 at 2-3, 11-20]; [ECF No. 54 (Plaintiff's Local Rule 56(a)2 Response to Defendants' Revised Statement of Material Facts) (“Pl.'s Stmt.”) ¶ 1]. On the night in question, Plaintiff ran from the residence at 142 Old North Stamford Road, Stamford, Connecticut, where she lived with her exboyfriend, Eugene Fattore (“the residence”) down the street to Coalhouse Pizza on High Ridge Road in Stamford. Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 1; Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 1 (citing Deposition Transcript of Barbara Hoyos dated September 17, 2020 at 102:11-16) (Defs.' Ex. C), [ECF No. 46-4].

During the call, Plaintiff “reported to the 911 operator that she and her exboyfriend had gotten into an argument after ‘. . . he started going, I guess, through the boxes and he found like 3 little Christmas knives and said that I'm stealing all of his stuff.'” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 2 (quoting 911 Call Audio, Defs.' Ex. B (Gaudett Aff. Ex. 1) at 00:52-00:58); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 2. “When asked further about the ‘small Christmas knives', [Plaintiff] said: ‘Yes, little tiny butter knives. He went through a box that I had packed and honestly, I think they are his. . .' She repeated later in the call: ‘And honestly, those knives, those little things, I think they are his . . .' And one last time, ‘We're talking $2.99 butter knives and they are his, they're his, I admit it.'” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 3 (quoting 911 Call Audio, Defs.' Ex. B (Gaudett Aff. Ex. 1) at 1:34-1:40; 6:10-6:15; 11:17-11:21); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 3.

“Officer Czubatyj (“Czubatyj”) and Officer Oliva (“Oliva”) were dispatched to 142 Old North Stamford Road on the report of a verbal domestic between” Plaintiff and Fattore. Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 4 (citing Defs.' Ex. D, [ECF No. 46-5 (Czubatyj Affidavit)] ¶ 5); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 4. Officers Czubatyj and Oliva were each alone in their police vehicles when dispatched to the residence by the ECC. Defs.' Stmt. ¶¶ 5-6 (citing Defs.' Ex. D ¶ 4 and Defs.' Ex. E, [ECF No. 46-6 (Deposition Transcript of Kiana Oliva dated November 10, 2020 at 37:15-18)]; Pl.'s Stmt. ¶¶ 5-6.

“Officers Califano (‘Califano') and Donahue (‘Donahue') were partners and rode together in patrol vehicle #53 during the midnight shift on July 14, 2017. They were dispatched to the Coalhouse Pizza location.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 7 (citing Defs.' Ex. F, [ECF No. 46-7 (Califano Affidavit)] ¶¶ 5-6); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 7.

“Sergeant Keenan, a patrol sergeant on duty during the midnight shift on July 14, 2017, also responded to the residence located at 142 Old North Stamford Road.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 8 (citing Defs.' Ex. G, [ECF No. 46-8 (Keenan Affidavit)] ¶¶ 79); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 8.

“As they were dispatched, all officers were informed that [Plaintiff] reported ‘that she's having difficulty with her boyfriend Gene Fattore'; that he was in the house at the 142 Old Stamford Road location and that she was at Coalhouse Pizza calling for assistance. They were also told that ‘there are guns in the house but they should be secured' and that it ‘was verbal only, at this time.' In response to an officer's inquiry about any history on Fattore, dispatch stated that there was ‘a previous 90 Frank just yesterday at that location, same party.'” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 9 (quoting ECC Police Dispatch audio, Defs.' Ex. B (Gaudett Aff. Ex. 2) at 00:2100:41; 00:43-00:51; 02:03-02:10); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 9.

“Before [Plaintiff] arrived on the scene, Oliva began interviewing Fattore and was told the following: he has a relationship with [Plaintiff]; she was given an order from a marshal that she would have to be out of the house within two months; she is packing things up and taking things from the house; he feels like things are disappearing; she calls his family, calls his job; calls anyone he knows; he feels like he is being taken advantage of; she is using the police to threaten him because nothing else is working.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 13 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 35:13-15; 33:15-25; 34:1-5; 35); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 13. “Fattore said that [Plaintiff] was financially dependent on him; that she was asking for money and taking his items and that when she did not get what she wanted, she would call his ex-wife, his current employer, and his daughter. He told Oliva that he was afraid he was going to lose his job and that it would affect his family life. He said it was a nightmare.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 14 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 52:10-12; 66:9-13; 68:4-13; 58:2-3); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 14.

“When asked whether he burst into [Plaintiff's] bedroom, Fattore said that he did not. He said that he opened the door to speak with [Plaintiff]. He said he wanted to talk to her about the knives; why she had taken the knives; why she was taking everything. He said he was upset.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 19 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 195:2-4, 18-24); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 19.

“During one of her interviews with Fattore, he told Oliva that [Plaintiff] was taking things and he specifically referred to decorative Santa knives being stolen from him.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 33 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 118:15-23; 119:1-4). “He told Oliva and Keenan that the knives were in a box, which [Plaintiff] had packed, and he was very upset about it because the knives were something that his father had left to him.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 33 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. At 121:25; 122:1-12; Keenan Aff. ¶ 16). “Oliva saw the Santa knives, which Fattore described as decorative knives, in a packed box as did Czubatyj.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 34 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 134:18-20; Czubatyj Aff. ¶10). “Oliva told Keenan that she saw them packed in the box.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 34 (citing Keenan Aff. ¶ 18). “The box was opened in her presence by Fattore.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 34 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 144:6-9).

“Fattore did not appear angry or excited to Oliva; he seemed deflated, upset, disappointed, sad, helpless.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 16 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 55:15-25; 56:1-2). “Keenan found him to be calm, composed and cooperative, although somewhat defeated and resigned to the situation.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 16 (citing Keenan Aff. ¶¶ 10, 17). Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 16. “Fattore did not appear to be intoxicated to any of the officers.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 18 (citing Keenan Aff. ¶¶ 10, 17; Califano Aff. ¶ 11; Czubatyj Aff. ¶ 11; Oliva Depo. Tr. at 56:3-6; 57:13-18); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 18.

“[Plaintiff] remained in the back seat of the squad car for about five minutes once she arrived back at the residence.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 22 (citing Defs.' Ex. C, [ECF No. 46-4 (Deposition Transcript of Barbara Hoyos dated September 17, 2020 at 110:22-25; 111:1; 111:17-20)]. “In their initial interview, Oliva asked [Plaintiff] why she called the police and [Plaintiff] said that Fattore had opened the door to her bedroom aggressively and that he was yelling. She made no allegation of physical violence or destruction of property. Oliva asked her if there was anything other than yelling and [Plaintiff] said no.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 25 (citing Oliva Depo. Tr. at 94:3-6; 94:23-25; 95:1-3; 96:22-24); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 25.

“After she got to the residence, [Plaintiff] . . . left with a police officer to go into the house to plug in her phone.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 27 (citing Hoyos Depo. Tr. at 131:4-9); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 27. “[Plaintiff] was very concerned about charging her cell phone, on which it turned out she was recording some of her conversations with the officers.” Defs.' Stmt. ¶ 27 (citing Keenan Aff. ¶ 17); Pl.'s Stmt. ¶ 27.

...