Tabb v. Matteo

Background

Jennifer Tabb brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows damages claims for constitutional violations. She sued New York State Court Officers Philip Matteo, John Dimotta, Jason Quod, and Danielle Wise over events surrounding her October 14, 2015 arrest in New York County Family Court. The amended complaint alleged false arrest, excessive force, violation of Tabb’s right to a fair trial, and failure to intervene.

The amended complaint alleged that Matteo grabbed Tabb, pushed her into a stairwell, and later used force against her in an elevator. It alleged that Dimotta and Quod followed closely behind Matteo, that all of the defendants escorted Tabb after she was handcuffed, and that Quod was present while Matteo continued using force. Tabb sought money damages.

Motion and Legal Standard

Quod moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. He argued that the amended complaint did not adequately allege his personal involvement in Tabb’s arrest.

For a false-arrest claim under New York law, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intended to confine or arrest her, that she was aware of the confinement, that she did not consent, and that the arrest was not legally justified. In a Section 1983 damages action, the defendant must also have been personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation.

Court’s Analysis

The court described Tabb’s allegations about Quod as “somewhat meager,” but held that they crossed the line from possible to plausible. In particular, the amended complaint alleged that Quod followed Matteo into the stairwell while Matteo carried out the arrest and later helped escort Tabb from the area after she was handcuffed.

The court rejected Quod’s reliance on cases involving “mere presence,” because several of those cases were decided at the summary-judgment stage and concerned evidence developed in the record. The court also found that Tabb had identified each officer’s alleged role rather than merely making an undifferentiated allegation against all defendants. Finally, the court stated that it was too early to require Tabb to place these facts exclusively under a false-arrest theory or a separate failure-to-intervene theory.

Disposition

The court denied Quod’s motion to dismiss Tabb’s false-arrest claim. The court canceled the January 3, 2020 argument, directed the parties to appear for a January 17, 2020 status conference about case management, and directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion.