Caldwell v. City of New York

Background

Emmett Caldwell, proceeding without a lawyer, alleges that six fellow students sexually abused him at P.S. 123 in 1965. He alleges that school employees and officials knew about the incidents but failed to discipline the students or prevent further harm. He names the City of New York, unidentified employees and officials of the New York City Department of Education, the P.S. 123 principal, after-school supervisors, and the six students as defendants. He seeks money damages and alleges continuing physical and emotional pain.

Caldwell moved to serve defendants whose identities were unknown to him by publishing notice. District Judge Liman had previously directed the City of New York Law Department to try to identify the unidentified defendants and had denied an earlier request for service by publication. The Law Department later reported that the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education could not identify the John Doe defendants.

Rulings

The court denied Caldwell’s amended motion to serve the unidentified defendants by publication. Under the applicable service rules and constitutional notice requirements, the method of service had to be reasonably calculated to notify the defendants of the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the unidentified defendants might not read a notice in a publication and, because the events occurred more than 40 years earlier, would not reasonably be expected to recognize that a notice concerned them even if they read it.

The court also denied Caldwell’s request to expedite adjudication under New York’s Child Victims Act. It concluded that state rules governing case administration do not apply in federal court and noted that a scheduling order was already in place, with discovery scheduled to conclude by January 30, 2023.

The court denied Caldwell’s motion to compel the City defendants to accept service on behalf of the unidentified defendants and to impose sanctions. Because the City did not know the unidentified defendants’ identities, the court concluded that it could not accept service for them.

The court denied in part Caldwell’s other motion. Its request to reconsider the refusal to allow service by publication was denied; the court noted that, when the motion was filed, it had not yet ruled on the then-pending publication request. The motion also sought recusal of Judge Liman and an order vacating prior orders entered by Judge Liman. The court deferred those issues to Judge Liman.

Disposition and classification

Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that the motion at ECF No. 39 was denied, the motion at ECF No. 40 was denied, and the motion at ECF No. 53 was denied in part. This order concerns service, scheduling, sanctions, reconsideration, and related judicial requests; it does not address the underlying abuse allegations or damages claim. The classification is procedural because the court ruled on ancillary case-management and service issues rather than deciding the underlying claims.