Aloe v. The City Of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:18-cv-06090
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Aloe v. The City Of New York, Judge Cote granted defendants summary judgment because a class-action settlement barred Aloe’s civil-rights claims.
Marlene Aloe, the City of New York, and the unidentified correctional officers named as defendants. The ruling barred Aloe’s civil-rights claims and ended this case.
What happened
In Aloe v. The City Of New York, Marlene Aloe claimed that correctional officers subjected her to an improper search before she entered a Rikers Island jail facility to visit her son. The City of New York and unidentified correctional officers asked the court to decide the case without a trial, and Aloe did not properly oppose the request.
The court found that Aloe was covered by a settlement in an earlier class action involving invasive searches of visitors to New York City correctional facilities. She received notice but did not submit a timely request to leave the class. Because the settlement became a final judgment and covered the same events and legal claims, the court ruled that Aloe could not pursue them separately.
Judge Cote granted the defendants’ request to add the claim-preclusion defense to their answer and awarded summary judgment to the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
The detailed version
- Aloe v. The City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-06090
- Denise Cote
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Marlene Aloe sued the City of New York and unidentified correctional officers in their official and individual capacities. She alleged that on November 18, 2016, before she could enter the North Infirmary Command facility at the Rikers Island jail complex to visit her son, correctional officers forced her into a bathroom, instructed her to unbutton her pants, and touched her inappropriately while conducting a search.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Aloe did not file a memorandum of law or supporting evidence. She filed only a statement responding to the defendants’ statement of facts. The court nevertheless independently reviewed whether the defendants had met their burden.
Related Class-Action Settlement
A separate class action involved federal and state civil-rights claims for money damages based on invasive searches of visitors to New York City correctional facilities. The settlement covered people who visited or attempted to visit an inmate at a New York City Department of Correction facility between November 23, 2012, and October 30, 2019, and were subjected to an invasive search.
The settlement required class members who wanted to leave the class to submit an opt-out request by January 20, 2020. It stated that members who did not opt out would be bound by later proceedings, orders, and judgments. After a fairness hearing, the settlement was approved and the class action was dismissed with prejudice on November 29, 2021.
The settlement administrator sent notice to Aloe at her last known address, and the notice was not returned as undeliverable. Aloe did not submit an opt-out statement by the deadline. She asserted in her factual statement that she believed she had opted out by mailing the notice, but she provided no supporting documentation. A representative of the settlement administrator stated under oath that no opt-out statement had been received from Aloe.
Court’s Analysis
The defendants had not raised claim preclusion, also called res judicata, in their answer. Claim preclusion generally prevents a party from bringing a later case based on the same claim after a final judgment in an earlier case. The court construed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion as a request to amend their answer to add that defense and granted leave to amend. Aloe did not oppose that request.
The court held that the class-action settlement was a final judgment on the merits because the settlement resulted in dismissal with prejudice. The court also found that Aloe was a member of the settlement class. She did not dispute that point, and the evidence showed that she had not timely opted out. The court stated that binding her to the settlement did not require a separate showing that she failed to opt out through excusable neglect or that due process prevented the settlement from applying to her.
The court further found that Aloe’s claims and the claims covered by the settlement arose from the same group of underlying facts. Both concerned alleged invasive searches of visitors to Rikers Island and other New York City jails during the relevant period. The court noted that similar evidence—including video recordings, written search records, correctional officers’ and supervisors’ testimony, and training materials—could be used for both sets of claims.
Aloe’s unsupported statement that she believed she had opted out did not create a genuine factual dispute. The court explained that a bare assertion in a factual statement, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Aloe also did not show that applying the settlement to her would violate due process.
Disposition
The court concluded that the settlement’s preclusive effect barred Aloe’s claims. Summary judgment was awarded to the defendants. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.