Della Mura v. Thomas

Background

The supplied document is titled “Motion of Defendant Thomas to Dismiss Complaint; Request for Hearing; Request for Fees and Costs; Incorporated Memorandum of Law.” Richard Thomas moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 to dismiss the complaint as to him. The caption lists Anthony Della Mura as plaintiff and Lawrence Porcari, the City of Mount Vernon, Richard Thomas, Benjamin Marable, and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply as defendants.

The motion states that Thomas was the mayor of Mount Vernon during the events alleged in the complaint. It seeks dismissal of the claims against Thomas, including dismissal with prejudice, and requests attorney’s fees and costs.

Arguments in the Motion

The motion addresses four claims:

- Count 1 — Civil RICO: Thomas argues that the complaint does not allege an injury to business or property, as required for a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. He contends that the alleged physical, emotional, financial, and lost-wage injuries are personal injuries or employment-related losses that are not recoverable under that statute. He also argues that the complaint does not allege a direct causal connection between the alleged scheme and Della Mura’s injuries. - Counts 2 and 3 — Disability discrimination: Thomas argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not impose liability on individual defendants. He also asserts that he was not the official responsible for Della Mura’s employment status and that the complaint does not adequately allege that Thomas caused the claimed actions. - Count 4 — Civil rights: Thomas argues that the Section 1983 claim is barred by qualified immunity, which can protect government officials from personal liability for damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established federal right. He contends that the complaint does not plausibly allege protected speech, adverse action, or a causal connection supporting First Amendment retaliation, and that he was not Della Mura’s direct supervisor or a decision-maker responsible for the alleged employment actions.

Thomas also argues that any claims against him in his official capacity for money damages are treated as claims against the government and are barred by the immunity he invokes under the Eleventh Amendment. The motion further contends that the claims against Thomas are redundant of claims against the City of Mount Vernon.

Document Status and Disposition

The supplied text contains Thomas’s arguments, legal authorities, conclusion, and attorney signature. It does not contain a readable judicial analysis or an order granting, denying, or otherwise disposing of the motion. Accordingly, this text does not establish that any claim was dismissed or that fees and costs were awarded. The judge’s name is not readable in the supplied text.