Kuiken v. Cnty. of Hamilton

669 F.Supp.3d 119

Robert KUIKEN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HAMILTON, Michael Tracy,Sean O'Brien, J.W. Loomis, John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), Defendants.

6:22-CV-1157

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed April 18, 2023

AJ BOSMAN, ESQ., ROBERT J. STRUM, ESQ., BOSMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 3000 McConnellsville Road, Blossvale, NY 13308

STEPHEN M. GROUDINE, ESQ., THOMAS K. MURPHY, ESQ., MURPHY BURNS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants County of Hamilton, Sean O'Brien and J.W. Loomis, 407 Albany Shaker Road, Loudonville, NY 12211

MARC J. KAIM, ESQ., O'CONNOR FIRST, Attorneys for Defendant Michael Tracy, 20 Corporate Woods Blvd., P.O. Box 208, Albany, NY 12211

DECISION and ORDER

David N. Hurd, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 19, 2022, plaintiff Robert Kuiken ("Kuiken" or "plaintiff") filed this action against defendants County of Hamilton (the "County"), Michael Tracy ("Tracy"), Deputy Sean O'Brien ("Deputy O'Brien"), Deputy J.W. Loomis ("Deputy Loomis"), John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s) in the County of Hamilton Supreme Court. See Dkt. No. 2.

On November 7, 2022, the County removed this action to federal court. See Dkt. No. 1. Thereafter, Kuiken amended his complaint as of right. Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff's four-count amended complaint asserts an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims for defamation, tortious interference with business relations,¹ and violation of New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n.

On December 16, 2022, the County, Deputy Loomis, and Deputy O'Brien (the "County defendants") moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).² Dkt. No. 13. The motions have been fully briefed and will be considered on the basis of the submissions without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

Since 1981, Kuiken has been a member of the Speculator Ambulance Corps, Inc. ("Speculator Ambulance"). Compl. ¶ 13. At 83 years old, plaintiff was the oldest member of Speculator Ambulance. Id. ¶¶ 6, 13. Plaintiff always performed his duties in a competent manner. Id. ¶ 15. However, plaintiff alleges that defendants perceived him as "too old" or infirm to perform his duties. Id.

On at least two occasions prior to July 1, 2021, defendant Tracy, another member of Speculator Ambulance, undermined Kuiken's authority. Compl. ¶ 15. On these occasions, while at the site of an emergency, plaintiff informed dispatch that an ambulance was needed. Id. Tracy objected and told dispatch that he was en route and would assess the situation himself. Id. Upon arriving at the scene, Tracy chose to summon an ambulance as plaintiff had originally advised. Id.

It is traditional and customary that the most senior member who responds to an emergency call is deemed in charge of the scene. Compl. ¶ 15. As such, defendant Tracy's act of overriding Kuiken's decision to dispatch an ambulance usurped plaintiff's authority. Id. Tracy's conduct interfered with plaintiff's ability to respond to emergencies and service the ill and injured members of his community. Id.

On July 17, 2021, Speculator Ambulance was dispatched to the scene of a medical emergency. Compl. ¶ 16. Kuiken and defendant Tracy, in response to the call, both drove their personal vehicles to the site of the emergency. Id. En route, Tracy drove behind plaintiff. Id. Although Tracy never said anything to plaintiff, it would later turn out that Tracy accused plaintiff of driving recklessly. Id. ¶ 17.

In particular, as defendant Tracy was leaving the site of the emergency, he conversed with defendant Deputy O'Brien, a Deputy Sheriff with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 18. Tracy falsely accused Kuiken of speeding and reckless driving. Id. ¶ 18. Tracy and Deputy O'Brien prepared a statement for Tracy to sign that accused plaintiff of failing to yield the right of way to Tracy while traveling to the emergency. Id. Tracy's statement also accused plaintiff of "crossing over several double yellow lines on blind corners and traveling at an excessive rate of speed." Id.

Notably, defendant Tracy did not report Kuiken's reckless driving to a supervisor. Compl. ¶ 20. As plaintiff explains, Speculator Ambulance has a para-military command structure, comprised of a Captain and Lieutenant. Id. According to the amended complaint, Tracy made his false report to defendant Deputy O'Brien without seeking approval to do so from either the Captain or Lieutenant. Id.

The following day, July 18, 2021, Kuiken was dispatched to respond to another medical emergency. Compl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff's vehicle is equipped with an EMS emergency light and his license bears his last name, "Kuiken." Id. As plaintiff was traveling to the scene of the emergency, defendant Deputy Loomis, a Deputy Sheriff with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office, was traveling in the opposite direction. Id. ¶¶ 11, 22. Deputy Loomis made a U-turn and began following plaintiff. Id. ¶ 22. Upon information and belief, Deputy Loomis knew that plaintiff was on his way to the site of an emergency and waited nearby with the intent to pull him over. Id. Deputy Loomis followed plaintiff to the scene of the emergency and proceeded to pull plaintiff over. Id. Deputy Loomis refused to allow plaintiff to exit his vehicle to respond to the emergency until plaintiff provided his license and registration. Id.

Shortly after Kuiken was stopped by defendant Deputy Loomis, defendant Deputy O'Brien arrived at the scene. Compl. ¶ 23. After a short chat, the two officers agreed to charge plaintiff with offenses based on the information that defendant Tracy had provided to Deputy O'Brien the day before. Id.

Defendant Deputy Loomis returned to Kuiken's vehicle and told him that he was just "written up last night." Compl. ¶ 24. This apparently was a reference to defendant Tracy's accusation that plaintiff was driving recklessly the day prior. Id. Deputy Loomis then issued plaintiff a ticket for traffic law offenses. Id.

Thereafter, Kuiken complained to Karl Abrams ("Sheriff Abrams"), the Hamilton County Sheriff, about the conduct of defendants Deputy Loomis and Deputy O'Brien. Compl. ¶ 27. Sheriff Abrams showed plaintiff the written statement signed by defendant Tracy that accused plaintiff of speeding and reckless driving on July 17, 2021. Id. Plaintiff requested that Sheriff Abrams retrieve the video footage from the Fire Department which would have captured the times that plaintiff passed by en route to the emergency call and the time that Tracy passed by on his way to the call. Id. ¶ 28. According to plaintiff, the video would have shown that Tracy was far behind plaintiff and thus, the statement prepared by Tracy and Deputy O'Brien was false. Id. Sheriff Abrams dismissed plaintiff's complaints and refused to investigate. Id. Sheriff Abrams also refused to provide plaintiff with Tracy's statement. Id.

Kuiken pleaded not guilty to the traffic offenses and was not convicted of the offenses charged against him. Compl. ¶ 29. The charges were resolved on or about May 24, 2022, by agreement. Id. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to parking violations. Id.

Kuiken was terminated from his membership with Speculator Ambulance on the basis of the statements, charges, and conduct of defendants Tracy, Deputy O'Brien, and Deputy Loomis. Compl. ¶ 30. In early 2022, plaintiff was asked to surrender his equipment and has not been summoned to any emergencies since. Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint's factual allegations must be enough to elevate the plaintiff's right to relief above the level of speculation. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). So while legal conclusions can provide a framework for the complaint, they must be supported with meaningful allegations of fact. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In short, a complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

To assess this plausibility requirement, the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). In doing so, the court generally confines itself to the facts alleged in the pleading, any documents attached to the complaint or incorporated into it by reference, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Goel v. Bunge, Ltd., 820 F.3d 554, 559 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Concord Assocs., L.P. v. Ent. Props. Tr., 817 F.3d 46, 51 n.2 (2d Cir. 2016)).

IV. DISCUSSION

Kuiken's four-count amended complaint asserts one federal claim and three state law claims. See Compl. ¶¶ 35-46. Plaintiff's federal law claim, an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is asserted against defendants Tracy, Doe(s), Deputy O'Brien, Deputy Loomis, and the County. Id. Plaintiff's state law claims include: (1) defamation against Tracy; (2) tortious interference with business relations against Tracy, Deputy O'Brien, and Deputy Loomis; and (3) New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n against Tracy, Deputy O'Brien, and Deputy Loomis. Id. The County defendants seek dismissal of all claims asserted against them—equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, tortious interference with business relations, and New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n. See Defs.' Mem., Dkt. No. 13-3 at 7.

A. Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 3)

The County defendants seek dismissal of Kuiken's equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. Defs.' Mem. at 13-20. This claim is asserted against defendants Tracy, Doe(s), Deputy O'Brien, Deputy Loomis, and the County. See Compl. ¶¶ 41-43.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deny to any persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. This...