Rusfeldt v. City of New York, New York

Background

Pastor Aden Rusfeldt brought claims arising from his interactions with and arrest by New York City Police Department officers at the June 27, 2021, PrideFest in Manhattan. The opinion says his surviving claims allege violations of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.

A trial was scheduled for June 17, 2025. The trial would address Rusfeldt’s claims against Stephen Hughes and issues involving the City that could serve as predicates for a municipal-liability claim. The jury would determine whether any person at the scene, including Hughes, deprived Rusfeldt of a constitutional right.

After the final pretrial order was entered, Rusfeldt moved under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss his claim against Hughes with prejudice. Rule 41(a)(2) requires a court order for a plaintiff-requested dismissal in circumstances not covered by the rule’s other voluntary-dismissal provision. Hughes and the City opposed the motion.

Court’s reasoning

The court focused on whether dismissal would cause Hughes plain legal prejudice. Hughes argued that he was entitled to participate in the jury trial because the jury would decide whether he had deprived Rusfeldt of a constitutional right. The court explained that Rusfeldt’s stipulation that Hughes was entitled to qualified immunity did not decide whether Hughes had violated Rusfeldt’s constitutional rights; it only meant that Hughes would be immune from liability even if he had done so.

The court described Hughes as a central figure in the events. According to the allegations cited in the opinion, Hughes gave orders to subordinate officers, ordered Rusfeldt to take down his sign, directed him to walk away from the Pride Festival, and told him that officers were required by law to protect him. Rusfeldt’s summary-judgment filing cited Hughes’s actions or testimony more than thirty times, and a later filing relied on testimony from Hughes.

The court concluded that dismissing Hughes would leave him without the legal authority to control the defense at a trial deciding whether he had violated Rusfeldt’s constitutional rights. He would lose direct input into witness selection, examination, legal and factual arguments, and stipulations. The court also said that, although Hughes was a former NYPD and City employee, dismissal would reduce him to a bystander in a proceeding that could adversely affect his professional reputation.

The court rejected Rusfeldt’s argument that denying dismissal would force him to proceed with a trial he did not want. The court noted that Rusfeldt wanted to proceed against the City on a municipal-liability claim and that the trial was needed to determine whether there was a basis for that claim. The court also found that keeping Hughes in the case would not materially lengthen the trial.

Ruling

Judge Castel denied Rusfeldt’s motion to dismiss the claim against Hughes. The order states that the court was prepared to dismiss the claim with prejudice if Rusfeldt agreed that Hughes had not deprived him of any right protected by the First or Fourth Amendments. The court did not impose that condition or dismiss the claim in this order. It reserved for a later time the question whether punitive damages remained in the case.