Sanders v. City of Saratoga Springs

691 F.Supp.3d 548

Miranda SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, Saratoga Casino Holdings, LLC,Saratoga Casino Hotel, Edward Moore, Eileen Cotter, and Kristopher Camarro,Saratoga Springs Police Officer, Defendants.

1:22-cv-01154 (BKS/ATB)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed August 29, 2023

For Plaintiff: Brian C. Mahoney, Caitlin E. O'Neil, Lippes Mathias LLP, 50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700, Buffalo, NY 14202.

For Defendants Saratoga Casino Holdings, LLC and Saratoga Casino Hotel: David M. Cost, Barclay Damon LLP, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207.

For Defendants Moore and Cotter: Kevin P. Burke, Burke, Scolamiero & Hurd LLP, 7 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Miranda Sanders brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law against Defendants City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga Casino Holdings, LLC, Saratoga Casino Hotel, Edward Moore, Eileen Cotter, and Kristopher Camarro. (See Dkt. No. 1). Defendants Moore and Cotter move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 21). Defendants Saratoga Casino Holdings, LLC and Saratoga Casino Hotel (collectively, "Casino Defendants"), who answered the Complaint, move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Dkt. No. 28).¹ Plaintiff opposes Defendants' motions and cross-moves for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 33; see Dkt. No. 33-2 (proposed amended complaint ("PAC"))). Moore, Cotter, and Casino Defendants (collectively, "Moving Defendants") oppose Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend. (Dkt. Nos. 42, 43). For the following reasons, Moore and Cotter's motion to dismiss is denied, Casino Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTS²

A. Plaintiff's Lottery Payment

On February 15, 2021, Plaintiff, "an owner of a local butcher shop," "visited Saratoga Casino Hotel [ ] where she redeemed four [ ] lottery 'scratch-off' tickets." (Dkt. No. 33-2, ¶¶ 19, 60). "She presented her winning tickets to the cashier employed by the Casino who handed her an additional $850.00." (Id. ¶ 19). Plaintiff "questioned the amount, commenting 'I think you gave me too much money,' and requesting that the cashier verify the amount was correct." (Id.). The cashier "confirmed [Plaintiff] was entitled to the additional $850.00, saying, 'No, that's right,' " and Plaintiff "accepted her winnings and left the Casino." (Id.).

On or about the same day, Cotter, "a Casino employee," "telephoned [Plaintiff] and informed her that she had been overpaid by the Casino in the sum of $850.00 and sought repayment of the money to the Casino at an agreed-upon time." (Id. ¶ 20). Subsequently, Cotter "contacted [Plaintiff] again, and told [her] that she had committed larceny if she refused to return money provided to [her] because of the Casino's mistake"; Cotter "pressured [Plaintiff] to return to the [C]asino and to return the funds," and she "threatened" Plaintiff "by telling her that the police would be involved if [she] would not resolve the dispute with [ ] Cotter." (Id. ¶¶ 21-23).

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff "returned to the Casino to meet with the Director of Security[,] Edward Moore, who was formerly Chief of Police with the [Saratoga Springs Police Department ("SSPD")]," but left after "waiting some time for [ ] Moore to appear."³ (Id. ¶ 24). On March 5, 2021, Moore "decided to turn the matter over to law enforcement for petit larceny despite the fact that he knew there was no basis for criminal prosecution." (Id. ¶ 25). Moore "provided information and documentation to the SSPD that he believed would result in arrest and prosecution for Petit Larceny" and instructed Cotter "to assist the SSPD[ ] and to provide information, copies of the tickets cashed out, and video evidence." (Id. ¶¶ 26, 27). Moore also "documented that [Plaintiff] committed Petit Larceny, a Class A misdemeanor" in a security incident report. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 30).

"Subsequently, [Plaintiff] received additional and repeated calls from employees of the Casino and/or [ ] Moore seeking the return of the money" and "warn[ing] her that if she did not return the money, the matter would be turned over to the SSPD for arrest and prosecution." (Id. ¶ 31). Plaintiff's attorney "sought to verify the amount of the overage and requested information related to the incident," but the requests "were denied by the SSPD on the grounds it was an ongoing investigation." (Id. ¶ 32).

B. Issuance of Warrants for Plaintiff's Arrest

On March 9, 2021, in a tape-recorded phone call, SSPD Officer Camarro "told [Assistant District Attorney ("ADA")] Fradino that [Plaintiff] had won money at the Casino and the Casino's cashier" overpaid her. (Id. ¶ 33). "Officer Camarro acknowledged that [Plaintiff] had asked the cashier to verify the amount and the cashier indicated it was correct." (Id. ¶ 34). In response, ADA Fradino said that Plaintiff "did nothing wrong." (Id. ¶ 35). ADA Fradino explained that Plaintiff could not be charged with larceny, "noting that [Plaintiff] had tried to rectify the situation when she asked the cashier to verify the amount." (Id.). ADA Fradino stated that Plaintiff "ha[d] not committed a crime." (Id.). Officer Camarro "agreed by stating, 'I did not feel right charging her.' " (Id.). "After the call, Officer Camarro wrote in an Incident Report that he informed Ms. Cotter . . . that the Saratoga Springs District Attorney's Office ["SSDAO"] did not view the matter as criminal." (Id. ¶ 36). On or around March 13, 2021, "the SSPD marked the investigation into [Plaintiff] as 'closed.' " (Id. ¶ 37).

On March 13, 2021, Officer Camarro called Plaintiff and told her that "the Casino wanted to press charges if she did not return the money, effectively using the powers of the SSPD as a collection agency." (Id. ¶ 38). Plaintiff alleges that Moore and Cotter "advised, insisted, or otherwise importuned that SSPD investigate and arrest [Plaintiff]." (Id.). On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff's "attorney contacted the SSPD and spoke to the Desk Sergeant, who stated the matter was closed." (Id. ¶ 39).

On April 8, 2021, Officer Camarro "draft[ed] a sworn complaint" stating that Plaintiff "knowingly receive[d] an additional $850.00 from the Saratoga Hotel and Casino" and that when she "was made aware of the overpayment she [ ] with[held] the money from the casino." (Id. ¶ 40). Plaintiff alleges that these statements were "knowingly false" and that "[t]he report to the SSPD that [Plaintiff] withheld money was false." (Id. ¶¶ 40-41). On April 13, 2021, "[a] first warrant for [Plaintiff's] arrest was prepared" "accusing [her] of Petit Larceny under New York State Penal Law Section 155.25." (Id. ¶ 42). On June 24, 2021, "due to an incorrect date of birth on the first arrest warrant," "[a] second warrant for [her] arrest was signed." (Id.). "Both warrants were issued with knowledge that probable cause that a crime was committed was wholly lacking" and "with false information provided by Defendants Moore, Cotter, and the Casino." (Id. ¶¶ 43-44). Officer Camarro "deliberately failed to inform [the Judge] that the [SSDAO] had told Officer Camarro that he could not charge [Plaintiff] under the circumstances and that no crime had been committed." (Id. ¶ 47). Defendants "[knew] probable cause was lacking." (Id. ¶¶ 48, 62). Plaintiff alleges that her subsequent "arrest was the result of an agreement amongst Defendants to arrest [Plaintiff] despite there not being any evidence of a crime." (Id. ¶ 46).

C. Plaintiff's Arrest

On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff informed her attorney "that the SSPD had issued a warrant for her arrest." (Id. ¶ 49). The next day, Plaintiff "turned herself in," "was patted down and handcuffed behind her back," and "remained in handcuffs from 9:00 [a.m.] to almost noon in a holding cell with other arrestees and parole violators until she appeared in City Court, where she pleaded not guilty." (Id.).

On November 4, 2021, Plaintiff's arrest "was reported in three different newspapers." (Id. ¶ 50). On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff appeared in Court "but the proceeding was adjourned because discovery materials had not been turned over by the prosecution." (Id. ¶ 51). "Through discovery, [P]laintiff's counsel learned of the tape-recorded call between Officer Camarro and the ADA and notified the prosecution and [C]ourt." (Id. ¶ 52).

D. Dismissal of Plaintiff's Charge

On January 11, 2022, the SSDAO "dismissed the charges in the interest of justice." (Id. ¶ 53). The prosecutor told the Judge that Plaintiff "literally tried not to take the money and they gave it to her anyway, so the People believe that she did not have sufficient intent for a charge of petit larceny." (Id. ¶ 54). Judge Vero stated that the charges were dismissed "because of a lack of evidence of [Plaintiff's] guilt, and a lack of harm caused." (Id.). However, "there was no publicity alerting the public that the charge against [Plaintiff] was dismissed." (Id. ¶ 58).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss—Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must provide 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Mere "labels and conclusions" are insufficient; rather, a plaintiff must provide factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See EEOC v. Port Auth., 768 F.3d 247, 253 ...