Della Mura v. Thomas
- 7:19-cv-08699-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Della Mura v. Thomas, the court’s provided text is Porcari’s motion to dismiss, not a ruling.
The filing concerns Anthony Della Mura’s claims against Lawrence Porcari. The requested relief would have dismissed the claims against Porcari, but the provided text does not show whether the court granted or denied the request.
What happened
Della Mura v. Thomas concerns Anthony Della Mura’s claims against Lawrence Porcari and other Mount Vernon-related defendants. The provided document is Porcari’s motion to dismiss the claims against him.
Porcari asked the court to dismiss the civil RICO, disability-discrimination, and civil-rights claims. He argued that the complaint did not adequately plead those claims, that certain immunities protected him, and that the civil RICO claim sought damages the statute does not cover. He also requested attorney’s fees and costs.
The provided text does not contain a court ruling or state whether the motion was granted or denied. Judge information is not supplied; the court is therefore identified as the judicial authority for Della Mura v. Thomas.
The detailed version
- Della Mura v. Thomas · No. 7:19-cv-08699-AEK
- Nov. 19, 2019
Nature of the Document
The provided text is titled “Motion of Defendant Porcari to Dismiss Complaint; Request for Hearing; Request for Fees and Costs; Incorporated Memorandum of Law.” It is a filing by defendant Lawrence Porcari, not a court opinion or order. The text says the motion was brought under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks dismissal of the complaint as to Porcari.
Claims and Arguments Presented
Porcari asked for dismissal of three categories of claims:
- Civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 4): Porcari argued that the complaint did not plausibly allege protected speech, adverse action, or a causal connection for a First Amendment retaliation claim. He also argued that qualified immunity protected him from individual-capacity liability and that the claim was redundant of the claim against the City. - Civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (Count 1): Porcari argued that the complaint alleged personal injuries, emotional injuries, physical injuries, and lost wages rather than an injury to business or property. He also argued that the complaint did not allege a sufficiently direct causal connection between the alleged conduct and Della Mura’s injuries. - Disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Counts 2 and 3): Porcari argued that the ADA does not allow recovery against individual defendants and that the complaint therefore failed to state claims against him.
Porcari also asserted immunity for claims against him in his official capacity and requested attorney’s fees and costs. The motion states that defense counsel conferred with plaintiff’s counsel, who did not agree to the requested relief.
Disposition
The provided text ends with Porcari’s request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to him. It does not include a judicial analysis, a signed court order, or a disposition granting or denying the motion. Because no ruling appears in the provided material, the court’s decision and the status of the claims cannot be determined from this text. The judge is not identified in the supplied materials.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.