Brodsky v. The New York City Campaign Finance Board

Background

Defendants New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, New York City Corporation Counsel, and the New York City Sheriff, identified as a non-party, asked the court to clarify whether four people added to the docket after Meryl Brodsky filed her amended complaint were properly named defendants. Those people were former New York State Judge Eileen M. Rakower, Muriel Goode-Trufant, the current Acting New York City Corporation Counsel, Hillary Weisman, the Board’s former General Counsel, and Louise Tomassetti, a former Board employee.

Brodsky proceeded without a lawyer. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires the complaint’s caption to name all parties, but the court noted that the caption does not always determine who the plaintiff intended to sue. The amended complaint did not list Rakower, Goode-Trufant, Weisman, or Tomassetti in its caption. It did, however, contain allegations that could suggest Brodsky intended to name Rakower, Weisman, and Tomassetti in connection with alleged improper dissemination of her tax-return information. The opinion also notes that the amended complaint used both “Louise Tomassetti” and “Julie Tomassetti” in different places.

Service and Party Status

The court did not decide whether Brodsky originally intended to name Rakower, Weisman, or Tomassetti as defendants. Instead, it relied on the fact that, as far as the docket showed, none of those individuals had been served. Brodsky had not requested summonses for them, had not taken steps to serve them, had not sought an extension of time, and had not responded to the defendants’ letter noting the lack of service.

More than 90 days had passed since the original complaint and amended complaint were filed. Rule 4(m) provides that when a defendant is not served within 90 days, the court must dismiss the action against that defendant without prejudice or order service within a specified time, after a motion or notice to the plaintiff. In this context, the court stated that it did not view Rakower, Weisman, or Tomassetti as defendants.

The court treated Goode-Trufant differently. It understood that Brodsky had named Hinds-Radix only in her official capacity as Corporation Counsel, and that the amended complaint referred to Goode-Trufant only in her official capacity after Hinds-Radix resigned. Because there appeared to be no allegations of personal wrongdoing that would support individual liability, the court held that Goode-Trufant should replace Hinds-Radix as the defendant in that official-capacity role. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) provides for automatic substitution when a public officer sued in an official capacity leaves office and a successor takes the position.

Disposition

The court directed the clerk to amend the docket caption by: (1) terminating Rakower, Weisman, and Tomassetti as parties to the action; and (2) substituting Goode-Trufant for Hinds-Radix as a defendant. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein.