LETTER Addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner

Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 477 Att. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------x ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, JOINT PROPOSED PRETRIAL ORDER -against- 10-CV-6005(RWS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------x Counsel having conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and the Court’s Individual Practices, the parties submit the following statements as their Joint Pretrial Order: i. Full Caption of the Action A. Plaintiff’s Proposed Caption ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, Tax Id. 873220, Individually and in his Official Capacity, ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH GERALD NELSON, Tax Id. 912370, Individually and in his Official Capacity, DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id.895117, Individually and in his Official Capacity, CAPTAIN THEODORE LAUTERBORN, Tax Id. 897840, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM GOUGH, Tax Id.919124, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SGT. FREDERICK SAWYER, Shield No. 2576, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN, Shield No. 2483, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART, Tax Id. 915354, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax Id. 885374, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004, Individually and in her Official Capacity, , CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, Tax Id. 899922, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #1-50, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), (collectively referred to as “NYPD defendants”), FDNY LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON, individually and in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department, JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ISAK ISAKOV, Individually and in his Official Capacity, DR. LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, Individually and in her Official Capacity and JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE’S Dockets.Justia.com “JOHN DOE” # 1-50, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Defendants. B. Defendants’ Proposed Caption1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, 10-CV-6005 (RWS) -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, Tax Id. 873220, Individually and in his Official Capacity, ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH GERALD NELSON, Tax Id. 912370, Individually and in his Official Capacity, DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id. 895117, Individually and in his Official Capacity, CAPTAIN THEORDORE LAUTERBORN, Tax Id. 897840, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT JOSEPH GOUGH, Tax Id. 919124, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SGT. FREDERICK SAWYER, Shield No. 2576, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN, Shield No. 2483, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART, Tax Id. 915354, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LT. TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax Id. No. 885374, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004, Individually and in her Official Capacity, (collectively referred to as “City Defendants”), FDNY LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON, individually and in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department, JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ISAK ISAKOV, Individually and in his Official Capacity, DR. LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 1 Defendants propose to amend the caption as follows to reflect the current posture of the case. 2 ii. Names, Addresses, and Telephone and Fax Numbers of Trial Counsel2 For Plaintiff For City Defendants Gerald Cohen City of New York, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson, COHEN & FITCH, LLP Theodore Lauterborn, William Gough, Frederick 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 Sawyer, Kurt Duncan, Christopher Broschart, New York, New York 10007 Timothy Caughey and Elise Hanlon (212) 374-9115 (212) 406-6890 (fax) ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York John Lenoir 100 Church Street JOHN LENOIR New York, New York 10007 829 Third Street Ne (212) 356-2344 Washington, DC 20002 (212) 356-3509 (fax) (202) 492-3739 By: Alan H. Scheiner (646) 417-7245 (fax) Cheryl L. Shammas Kavin Thadani Jon L. Norinsberg LAW OFFICES OF JON L. NORINSBERG For Defendant Mauriello 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, New York 10007 SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE th (212) 791-5396 444 Madison Avenue, 30 Floor (212) 406-6890 (fax) New York, New York 10022 (212) 371-4500 Nathaniel B. Smith (212) 371-6883 (fax) LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL B. SMITH By: Walter A. Kretz , Jr. 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10005 Patrick C. Nolan 212 227 7062 212 346 4665 (fax) For Defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP 220 E. 42nd Street, 1th Floor New York, New York 10017 (212) 916-0919 (212) 949-7054 (fax) By: William P. Brady Brian Osterman Gregory John Radomisli 2 Unless otherwise indicated, lists of the names of counsel are set forth in alphabetical order. 3 For Defendant Lillian Aldana-Bernier CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP One Whitehall Street New York, New York 10004 (212) 248-8800 (212) 248-6815 (fax) By: Meredith Borg Bruce M. Brady Matthew J. Koster For Defendant Dr. Isak Isakov IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP 2001 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, New York 11042 (516) 326-2400 (516) 352-4952 (fax) By: William R. Devine Brian Lee iii. Basis of Subject Matter Jurisdiction A. Plaintiff’s Version Subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction except to the extent that there is a dispute over the Court’s jurisdiction over the claim for declaratory relief as noted below and the parties to not dispute that the Court has subject matter or personal jurisdiction. B. Defendants’ Version Subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. The parties do not dispute that the Court has subject matter or personal jurisdiction except to the extent that there is a dispute over the Court’s jurisdiction over the claim for declaratory relief as noted below. iv. Summary of Claims and Defenses A. Plaintiff’s Summary of Claims and Defenses Plaintiff asserts claims against the defendants under federal and state law arising from a series of actions taken by the various defendants in this case over the course of a sustained period of time from later 2008 though the early spring of 2010. During this period of time, the NYPD- related defendants began an escalating series of retaliatory actions against the plaintiff for failing to achieve improper quotas, for reporting misconduct by the NYPD defendants, and for speaking 4 out about these issues. As a result, the NYPD Defendants entered and searched plaintiff’s home illegally on October 31, 2009 and he was assaulted, handcuffed, arrested and declared an “emotionally disturbed person” and then taken and kept against his will and without any justification to Jamaica Hospital where he was unlawfully and involuntarily committed as a mentally ill and dangerous person for six days by the Medical Defendants. After his release, the NYPD Defendants continued to harass and threaten the plaintiff in an effort to punish the plaintiff for speaking out and reporting misconduct and in an effort to inhibit him from speaking out further. The facts that form the basis for the plaintiff’s claims are set forth in the Third Amended Complaint. Although the Court in part granted some of the defendants summary judgment on some of the claims being asserted against the defendants, the plaintiff, the City Defendants and Defendant Mauriello have moved for reconsideration on various claims. Once the Court has rendered its decision on the various motions for consideration, the plaintiff will set forth the nature of the various claims and legal theories to be tried before the Court and a jury on October 19, 2015. B. The City Defendants’ Summary of Claims and Defenses3 1. Plaintiff’s Claims Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) asserts the following federal claims: (1) First Amendment Retaliation; (2) False Arrest; (3) Malicious Abuse of Process; (4) Excessive Force; (4) Failure to Intercede; (6) Unlawful Search and Entry; (7) Involuntary Confinement; (8) Conspiracy; (9) Substantive and Procedural Due Process; and (10) Municipal Liability. The TAC also asserts the following pendent state law claims: (1) Assault; (2) Battery; (3) False Arrest; (4) False Imprisonment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Negligent Hiring / Training/ Supervision/ Retention. By Opinion dated May 5, 2015, the Court disposed of numerous claims and dismissed certain parties from the action and from specific claims.4 The following constitute the claims remaining to be tried against the remaining City Defendants:5 3 By identifying a defense in this Pre-Trial Order, defendants do not concede that the contention listed is an affirmative defense or that they have the burden of proof as to the contention. 4 The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

Load more