Pemberton v. City of New York

Background

Dr. Clyde Pemberton and Christian Baptiste were arrested after an incident at MIST in June 2017. They were held for just under four hours, released on state criminal charges, appeared in court four times over the next five months, and had the charges dismissed in late November 2017. Pemberton brought claims including malicious prosecution and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute.

After discovery closed, the defendants—the City of New York, Police Officer Anthony Sengco, and Captain Khandakar Abdullah—filed a partial motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion sought to dismiss Pemberton’s economic-damage claims and Pemberton’s and Baptiste’s claims for criminal attorneys’ fees.

Pemberton’s claimed economic losses

Pemberton sought consequential damages, meaning financial losses allegedly resulting from the arrest and prosecution. He claimed losses connected to NUC, in which he owned 49.5%, and Mepco, which he solely owned. The claimed losses involved a delayed tax deferral and other business activities, repairs to a Jamaican property, delayed rental of Cayman Islands properties, and delayed acquisition of property for a beach resort in Belize.

The court held that Pemberton could not recover losses suffered by NUC and Mepco merely because he owned interests in those companies. The companies’ losses were not the same as Pemberton’s losses, and the alleged connection between the arrest and Pemberton’s shareholder losses was too indirect. The court also stated that these losses were not reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged wrongdoing.

The court separately rejected Pemberton’s claim for financial losses tied to travel-related delays. Pemberton testified that he chose not to travel except for emergencies after being stopped by immigration officials upon reentering the country. But he admitted that he traveled internationally during the criminal case, that the state court imposed no travel restriction, and that he was never prevented from leaving or reentering the country. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the arrest prevented him from traveling, so consequential damages based on travel restrictions were not recoverable.

Rule 26 and criminal attorneys’ fees

The court declined to decide at that stage whether Pemberton complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 or whether Pemberton and Baptiste could recover criminal attorneys’ fees. It held that those issues were not relevant to the question about whether the claimed consequential damages were legally recoverable. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on those matters without prejudice. The court also stated that any requests for further discovery were within the referral to Magistrate Judge Aaron.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants’ application to preclude Pemberton’s alleged consequential damages and denied without prejudice the application for other relief. The parties were directed to file a joint letter within seven days proposing next steps, and the Clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 57 and 64.