Mauro v. Cuomo

1

MARY J. MAURO on behalf of herself, and on behalf of her deceased husband MARIO F. MAURO, Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW M. CUOMO in both his official and individual capacity; HOWARD ZUCKER in both his individual and official capacity; STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, d/b/a THE LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME; and FRED SGANGA in both his individual and official capacity, Defendants.

No. 21-CV-1165 (HG) (ARL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 8, 2023

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HECTOR GONZALEZ, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Mary J. Mauro brings this action on behalf of herself and her deceased husband Mario F. Mauro (together “Plaintiffs”), against individual Defendants Andrew M. Cuomo, Howard Zucker and Fred Sganga, in their official and individual capacities, and entity Defendant the Long Island State Veterans Home (“LISVH”) (collectively, “Defendants”), to recover money damages for Defendants' alleged infringement of Plaintiff Mary Mauro's statutory right to visit and care for her disabled husband, who resided at LISVH. ECF No. 47 (Second Amended Complaint).^[1]Plaintiffs assert that the individual Defendants violated the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1989 (“FNHRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1396r, by restricting the ability of Plaintiff Mario Mauro's family members to visit him, which they allege is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 75-77.

Presently before the Court are two separate motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Cuomo, ECF No. 56, and Defendants Zucker, Sganga and LISVH (together, “LISVH Defendants”), ECF No. 55. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motions in their entirety.^[2]

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs were married for over sixty 60 years. ECF No. 47 ¶ 2. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiff Mario Mauro began living at LISVH. Id. ¶ 28. His family visited him every day to assist with his care and to keep him company. Id.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) to be a global pandemic and called on countries to “take urgent and aggressive action” to curb the spread of the virus.^[3]On March 13, 2020 the New York Department of Health (“DOH”) issued a health advisory recommending that nursing homes, such as LISVH, prohibit visitations except when medically necessary such as an end-of-life situation. Id. ¶ 29; ECF No. 47-4 (DOH Health Advisory, dated March 13, 2020). On March 24, 2020, LISVH informed Plaintiff Mario Mauro's family that they would no longer be allowed to visit Mr. Mauro. ECF No. 47 ¶ 29. LISVH allegedly restricted Plaintiff Mario Mauro's family from visiting him from March 24, 2020, until March 4, 2021, when Plaintiffs filed the instant action. Id. ¶ 30.

That same day, March 4, 2021, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to resume visitations at LISVH. Id. ¶ 38; ECF No. 1 (Complaint); ECF No. 2 (Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order).^[4] Plaintiffs allege that in response to the instant action, Defendants immediately permitted Plaintiff Mario Mauro's family to visit him. ECF No. 47 ¶ 38. Plaintiff Mario Mauro's family resumed visiting him until his death on May 30, 2021. Id.

On July 21, 2022, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss. ECF Nos. 55, 56. On August 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions, ECF Nos. 58, 59, and thereafter Defendants filed their replies. ECF Nos. 61, 62.

LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).^[5]“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In resolving a motion to dismiss, “consideration is limited to the factual allegations in plaintiffs' amended complaint, which are accepted as true.” Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993). While the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a plausible claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Cuomo, former Governor of New York Defendant Zucker, former Commissioner of DOH, and Defendant Sganga, Executive Director of LISVH, violated the FNHRA, both in their official and individual capacities, by placing restrictions on family visits at nursing homes, thus prohibiting Plaintiff Mario Mauro's immediate family from visiting him at LISVH for almost a year. Plaintiffs claim that such restrictions clearly violate federal law, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic, and are actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 47 ¶¶ 39-60, 76-77. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed because: (i) state officials acting in their official capacity have sovereign immunity from suit, see ECF No. 55-1 at 10-11 (LISVH Motion); (ii) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because there was no violation of their federal rights, see ECF No. 55-1 at 17-23; ECF No. 56-1 at 20-23 (Cuomo Motion); and (iii) even if Plaintiffs' federal rights were violated, Defendants acted in their individual capacities and are shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, see ECF No. 55-1 at 11-13; ECF No. 56-1 at 14-18. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.

I. The Eleventh Amendment Bars Plaintiffs' FNHRA Claim Against the Individual Defendants in Their Official Capacities

Defendants Cuomo, Zucker, and Sganga are all immune from Plaintiffs' claim for damages for any action taken in their official capacities because of the Eleventh Amendment. “The Eleventh Amendment confirms that states, state entities, and state officials acting in their official capacities have sovereign immunity from suit.” Kelly v. N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., No. 21-cv-1633, 2022 WL 1210665, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2022). At the time the lawsuit was initiated, Defendant Cuomo was Governor of New York, Defendant Zucker was the Commissioner of DOH, and Defendant Sganga was the Executive Director of LISVH, a New York State entity.^[6] The Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiffs from suing the individual Defendants “[t]o the extent that any of Plaintiff[s'] claims for money damages are being brought against any of [them] in their official capacities.” Kelly v. New York, No. 19-cv-2063, 2020 WL 7042764, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020); see also Arafa v. New York, No. 22-cv-4475, 2022 WL 3867650, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2022) (explaining that “Congress did not abrogate New York's Eleventh Amendment immunity by enacting Section 1983”).

There are three exceptions to this rule: (i) a state may waive its immunity from suit; (ii) Congress “may abrogate the sovereign immunity of the States by acting pursuant to a grant of constitutional authority”; and (iii) “under the Ex parte Young doctrine, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against a state official when that suit seeks . . . injunctive relief.” Deadwiley v. N.Y. State Off. of Child. & Fam. Servs., 97 F.Supp.3d 110, 115 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73 (1996)).

Here, there is nothing to suggest that New York State waived Defendants' right to sovereign immunity. See Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 114 (2d Cir. 2001) (“As is the case with the waiver of any constitutional right, an effective waiver of sovereign immunity requires an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”). There is also nothing in the FNHRA that suggests a Congressional abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment, and as stated above, Section 1983 did not by itself abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Arafa, 2022 WL 3867650, at *2. With respect to the third exception,-the Ex Parte Young doctrine- the Court finds that it is no longer applicable because Plaintiff Mario Mauro has passed away, and Plaintiffs are no longer seeking injunctive relief. See ECF No. 42-1 (Motion to Substitute Party); Text Order dated August 2, 2021 (finding Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction moot in light of Plaintiff Mario Mauro's passing). The Ex Parte Young doctrine applies where a plaintiff alleges an ongoing violation of federal law, but courts have declined to extend relief to claims for retrospective relief. See Ward v. Thomas, 207 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[S]uits against states and their officials seeking damages for past injuries are firmly foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment.”). Given Plaintiff Mario Mauro's passing, the Court cannot order injunctive relief regarding visitation and, therefore, the Ex Parte Young doctrine does not apply.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants are all immune from Plaintiffs' FNHRA claim for damages for any action taken in their official capacities.

II. Plaintiffs' FNHRA Claim Must Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants are liable in their individual capacities for alleged violations of the FNHRA. ECF No. 47 ¶¶ 23, 24, 26. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed as a matter of law because the FNHRA does not confer a private right of action and even if it did, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants violated the law. ECF No. 55-1 at 17-23 (LISVH Motion); ECF No. 56-1 at 20-23 (Cuomo Motion). Defendant Cuomo further argues that Plaintiffs' FNHRA claim against him in his individual capacity also fails as a matter of law because he was not personally involved...