Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al, No. 1:2010cv06005 - Document 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION re: 242 MOTION to Strike Document No. [10-cv-6005 (RWS)] filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. Based on the foregoing above, Plaintiff's motion for strike is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 5/7/2014) (tro) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 252 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------x ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, 10 Civ. 6005 (RWS) - against OPINION CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., ---------------------------------- ------x :'°':: Defendants. l, q ( :c.=-...::.-=-'l\ ' .·; ,'' \.i····(T::,'" A P P E A R A N C E S: ) Attorneys for the Plaintiff \ " , •. '. • ' \. " , • - -- i pl.!) t ! . L-------·--- ,'·'.'' - -- - .. #'< I ,. I• ,. ££ - - "' -· - . . .,.._._.. . . __. ....... ......... LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL B. SMITH 111 Broadway Suite 1305 New York, NY 10006 By: Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq. Attorney for Defendant Mauriello SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE 444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor New York, N.Y. 10022 By: Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Esq. Dockets.Justia.com Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff "Schoolcraft") has Schoolcraft Adrian moved pursuant to Fed. R. ("Plaintiff" or Ci v. to P. 12 ( f) strike a portion of the counterclaims filed by Defendant Deputy Inspector Steven Mauriello "Counterclaims"). ("Mauriello" or "Defendant") For the reasons set forth below, (the Plaintiff's motion is denied. Prior Proceedings A detailed recitation of the facts of the case is provided in this Court's opinion dated May 6, 2011, which granted in part and denied in part Center's motion to dismiss. Ci v . 6005 , 2011 Familiarity with WL Defendant facts Hospital Medical See Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y., 1758 635 , those Jamaica at is *1 ( S . D. N . Y . assumed. The May 6, action 10 2011 ) . involves claims brought by Plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint, dated September 2 5, 2012 (the "SAC") against the City, Mauriello, several other members of the New York City Police Department ( "NYPD") , Jamaica Hospital Medical Center ("JHMC"), two doctors employed by JHMC, and others. The instant motion involves the Counterclaims filed by 1 --- - - Defendant Mauriello on March 18, 2014. The Counterclaims seek recovery from Plaintiff for the damages suffered by Mauriello as a result of Plaintiff's alleged interference employment relationship with the NYPD. that with Mauriello's The Counterclaims allege Plaintiff willfully and maliciously engaged in conduct to damage the career and reputation of Mauriello, which included Plaintiff's reports to the NYPD Quality Assurance Division ("QAD") that Mauriello imposed illegal quotas on his officers. The Counterclaims allege that Plaintiff undertook his actions to get revenge against Mauriello for signing off on Plaintiff's 2008 NYPD evaluation in Counterclaims which ')[')[ 2, he received 3, 7. ) contain an allegation that concerning African a sub-standard Paragraph 6 of Schoolcraft made a Americans that the rating. Counterclaims racist Mauriello (See statement contends is contradictory to Plaintiff's stated reasons for his report to QAD. (Id. ')[ 6.) Caucasian male. The statement was not directed at Mauriello, a (Id.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on April 11, 2014. It seeks to strike the alleged racist statement said by Plaintiff in Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims. Oral arguments were held and the matter was marked fully submitted on April 30, 2014. The Motion To Strike Is Denied 2 Fed. R. Civ. pleading an P. 12(f) allows a court to "strike from a insufficient defense or any redundant, impertinent, or scandalous matter." 12(f) 'there "are not favorably viewed, is a strong Transit Auth., reason immaterial, Motions to strike under Rule and will be granted only where for so doing.'" 552 F. Supp. 2d 393, 404 Hargett v. (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Metro. (quoting M'Baye v. World Boxing Ass'n, No. 05 Civ. 958l(DC), 2007 WL 844552, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007)). To prevail on a motion to strike, a no party must allegations show would that: be " ( 1) admissible; evidence ( 2) the in support allegations of the have no bearing on the relevant issues; and (3) permitting the allegations to stand would result in prejudice to the movant." The allegation Counterclaim contains a race-based set forth in Id. Paragraph statement by Plaintiff that discriminatory remark against African 6 of the includes a Americans. Plaintiff contends that there is no legitimate reason for this inflammatory material to be placed in the Counterclaims and that the statement serves no purpose other than to inflame the reader. The Plaintiff has not shown that the allegation in Paragraph 6 is not relevant to the Counterclaims, as the statement at issue may potentially shed light on issues at the crux of the 3 Counterclaims. The Counterclaims allege that Plaintiff had a personal grudge and bias against Defendant and this grudge was the true reason for Plaintiff's complaints to the QAD about Mauriello's alleged misconduct as the commanding officer of the 8lst Precinct. (Counterclaims Plaintiff's challenge 2008 3-7.) NYPD Plaintiff's complaints to the QAD: Central to this alleged resentment was evaluation. purported The motivation Counterclaims for also bringing his that Schoolcraft sought to fight for the interests of the minority community served by the 8lst Precinct. (Id. Plaintiff's purported motivation for his reports to 6.) QAD is directly at odds with Defendant's version of Schoolcraft's motivations. The statement in Paragraph 6 is pertinent in two ways to the Counterclaims. First, the statement is germane as to whether Plaintiff's 2008 performance evaluation was related to his alleged failure to comply with illegal quotas imposed by Mauriello or on his actual performance as a police officer. Second, it is also relevant to whether Plaintiff brought the QAD complaints because of his grudge against Mauriello or, as Plaintiff contends, of his concern towards the predominantly minority community served by the 8lst Precinct. Given that the Plaintiff bears on relevant issues, 4 statement allegedly made by the statement's inflammatory nature is not sufficient to grant the motion to strike. 1 not enough that the matter offends the "[I]t is sensibilities of the objecting party if the challenged allegations describe acts or events that are relevant to the action." Civ. § 1382 (3d ed. 2011); SC Fed. see also Lynch v. & Proc. Prac. Southampton Animal Shelter Foundation Inc., 278 F.R.D. 55, 65 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (same). Even if an allegation "may not pass Rule 11 scrutiny at a later stage in the litigation" it may not be stricken if it has have some "possible bearing claim". on the subject matter Velez v. Lisi, 164 F.R.D. 165, 167 of the (S.D.N.Y. 1995); see also Illiano v. Mineola Union Free School Dist., 341, 357 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) [party's] 585 F. Supp. 2d (denying a motion to strike allegations pertaining to a defendant's alleged anti-Semitic remarks because they were relevant to gender-based hostile work environment claims and retaliation claims). The inflammatory nature of the derogatory remark is also softened by Plaintiff's allegations in the SAC of others using the same word: once allegedly by one officer speaking to another officer and another by one of the defendant officers to berate a subordinate officer. (See 240-43.) 1 5 Conclusion Based on the reasoning above, Plaintiff's motion strike is denied. It is so ordered. New York, NY May ' 2014 7 6 U.S.D.J. for
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
