Della Mura v. Thomas

Background

Anthony Della Mura sued Richard Thomas, Lawrence Porcari, Benjamin Marable, the City of Mount Vernon, and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply. The complaint asserted four causes of action: a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; failure to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act; disability discrimination under that statute; and retaliation for protected expression under the First Amendment, through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Della Mura alleged that he worked for the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply, had a below-the-knee amputation, and experienced delays and workplace conditions after seeking to return from disability leave. He alleged that his title and salary were reduced, that he was denied workplace accommodations and access to accounting records, and that disciplinary charges were brought against him. He also alleged that Porcari and Thomas were involved in the transfer of Board funds for Thomas’s legal defense and that employment actions against Della Mura were part of a campaign connected to that alleged scheme.

The City of Mount Vernon and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply asserted counterclaims against Della Mura for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conversion. They also asserted an indemnification crossclaim against Thomas, Porcari, and Marable. Porcari, Thomas, and Marable moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint’s claims against them. Thomas also moved to dismiss the indemnification crossclaim.

Rulings on Della Mura’s Claims

The court dismissed the civil RICO claim. It held that the alleged employment actions, including demotion and a salary reduction, were not themselves racketeering acts. The court further held that Della Mura had not adequately alleged the required direct relationship between the alleged RICO predicate acts involving the Board’s funds and his employment-related injuries. Lost wages and termination-related injuries were too indirect on the allegations presented. The court also noted that RICO does not provide a remedy for personal, emotional, or physical injuries.

The court dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claims against the individual defendants. It explained that individuals cannot be held personally liable under the ADA. The court dismissed both the failure-to-accommodate claim and the disability-discrimination claim as to Thomas, Porcari, and Marable. The opinion states that Della Mura indicated he would proceed on those claims against the City and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply instead.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim against the individual defendants. Della Mura did not oppose Thomas’s and Porcari’s motions as to that claim and did not oppose Marable’s motion. The opinion states that Della Mura indicated he would proceed on the claim against the City and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply.

Indemnification Crossclaim

The court dismissed the City Defendants’ indemnification crossclaim against Thomas and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related non-federal claim along with federal claims. The court reasoned that the individual defendants had been dismissed from the first-party action, the indemnification claim would not become ripe unless the City Defendants were found liable, and keeping the crossclaim in federal court would not promote judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity.

The court also dismissed the crossclaim against Porcari and Marable, although they had not moved to dismiss. It concluded that the same reasoning applied to all three individual defendants and that the City Defendants had an opportunity to address dismissal in response to Thomas’s motion.

Disposition and Remaining Claims

The court granted all three individual defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted Thomas’s motion to dismiss the crossclaim. The order dismissed all claims then pending against Porcari, Thomas, and Marable in their roles as defendants and cross-defendants. It also dismissed the City of Mount Vernon’s and the Mount Vernon Board of Water Supply’s crossclaims. The City and the Board were not terminated as defendants, and their counterclaims against Della Mura were not dismissed. The court stated that it would issue a separate order scheduling a conference about the next steps in the case.