Lepino v. Town/Village of Harrison

Background

Ralph Lepino sued the Town/Village of Harrison, Police Officer Robert J. Carlucci, and Code Enforcement Officer Matthew Fitzgerald under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The claims against Carlucci concerned alleged excessive force and state-law assault and battery. The claim against Fitzgerald alleged that he violated Lepino’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

After a police response to a verbal confrontation at Lepino’s home, Fitzgerald inspected a drainpipe that discharged water toward the street. Fitzgerald testified that he was concerned about water emptying into the street. He then issued Lepino a notice of violation under Section 507.1 of the International Property Maintenance Code, which prohibits roof drainage that creates a public nuisance. Lepino disputed that the drainpipe was discharging water and testified that Fitzgerald issued the notice to cover up or retaliate for the police tasing incident.

Lepino argued that he was treated differently from other Harrison properties with similar drains. He identified several purported comparator properties, including the Harrison fire station. But he testified that he did not know whether those properties had been cited as public nuisances. Lepino also visited three properties that had received notices from Fitzgerald, but he concluded those properties were materially different from his home.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view disputed facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but unsupported or speculative assertions are not enough to require a trial.

Equal Protection Analysis

The court explained that equal-protection claims generally require proof that the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated people. Lepino could proceed under a selective-enforcement theory, which would require proof of different treatment and an improper motive, or under a class-of-one theory, which would require intentional different treatment without a rational basis. Both theories required evidence of similarly situated comparators who were treated differently.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Lepino had identified potentially similar properties. It nevertheless held that Lepino had not raised a genuine factual dispute about different treatment. He had no evidence that Fitzgerald, or even Harrison, knew of similar properties that created a public nuisance but did not issue notices to them. His contention that the comparator properties were also not discharging water did not show that Fitzgerald treated them differently. The court also found irrelevant Lepino’s view that other properties for which Fitzgerald issued notices were not comparable, because the relevant question was how Fitzgerald treated similarly situated properties.

Disposition

The court granted Fitzgerald’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Lepino’s equal-protection claim against Fitzgerald and dismissed Fitzgerald as a defendant. The court directed the Clerk to terminate Fitzgerald as a defendant and terminate the motion. The opinion states that Harrison and Carlucci had not moved for summary judgment and scheduled a case-management conference.