Wade v. Lumia

Nature of the Filing

The provided document is a March 14, 2025 letter from counsel for the City of New York, Peter Lumia, and James-Albert Santana. It is a pre-motion letter, meaning it asks for permission or sets the stage for a later motion; it is not a judicial opinion or order. The defendants proposed moving for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which permits a court to decide whether the pleadings themselves support judgment. They also requested a stay, or pause, of remaining discovery while that motion was considered.

Background

The letter describes allegations concerning Uceff Wade. According to the complaint as summarized by the defendants, Wade was arrested on October 4, 2019, for rape based on statements made by a complaining witness to police. The complaint alleges discrepancies in the witness's account about the date and time of the offense, the witness's history of alcohol abuse, and Detective Lumia's failure to meet the witness in person or review the witness's medical records.

The complaint also refers to text messages between the witness and Detective Lumia. The defendants contend that those messages showed the witness identifying Wade and describing him as a rapist. Wade was indicted for rape and sexual abuse, was incarcerated at Rikers Island from October 4, 2019, until he posted bail on February 25, 2021, and was acquitted at trial on May 25, 2022.

Claims and Defendants' Proposed Arguments

The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty, false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of constitutional and statutory speedy-trial rights, failure to intervene, and municipal liability. It also asserts New York law claims for abuse of power, false arrest, and negligent hiring, training, and retention.

The defendants argue that the complaint and documents incorporated into it establish probable cause for Wade's arrest and prosecution. They contend that probable cause defeats the false-arrest, unlawful-detention, malicious-prosecution, failure-to-intervene, and municipal-liability claims. They further argue that the negligent hiring, training, and retention claims fail because the complaint alleges that the individual defendants acted within the scope of their employment and does not plead that they acted outside that scope. They also argue that the municipal-liability claim lacks sufficient allegations of an underlying constitutional violation and of a municipal policy or custom causing the alleged violation.

Discovery Request

The defendants asked the court to stay remaining discovery while their anticipated dispositive motion was pending. They argued that the proposed motion had substantial grounds, that a stay could avoid unnecessary discovery costs and burdens, and that the plaintiff would not suffer meaningful prejudice from a delay. The letter states that the plaintiff consented to the stay except for audio recordings from a victim's Amazon smart speaker that had been introduced at Wade's criminal trial. The defendants said they did not then possess those recordings but would produce them if they obtained them from the New York County District Attorney's Office.

Procedural Status

The letter proposes that the defendants file their motion by April 29, 2025, that the plaintiff respond by May 29, 2025, and that the defendants reply by June 12, 2025. The provided text contains no ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel. It therefore does not grant, deny, or otherwise resolve the anticipated motion or the request to stay discovery.