Connecticut District Court decision, Goodwine v. DCF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

on February 7, 2007, Mr. Cardillo, while working in Unit 6D within Building 6, responded to anemergency call from Unit 6C. In trying to break up a fight in Unit 6C, he sustained a headinjury, which left him permanently disabled.Ms. Goodwine and Mr. Cardillo filed their original Complaint [doc. # 1] on April 8,2008. On September 16, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their first Amended Complaint [doc. # 35], and onOctober 28, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 39] the Amended Complaint inpart. On December 10, 2008, the Court issued an Order [doc. # 44] directing the Plaintiffs to filea Second Amended Complaint that (1) removed Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim against DCF (CountTwo) and intentional infliction of physical injury claim against DCF (Count Eight) and (2)labeled the existing Counts One and Five as against the individual Defendants in their individualcapacities only. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint [doc. # 47] – the operative complaint –was filed on December 14, 2008.On December 15, 2008, in light of the Second AmendedComplaint, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 39] as moot. See Order[doc. # 48]. On January 28, 2010, Plaintiff Joan Goodwine filed a Motion for Partial SummaryJudgment [doc. # 63] as to Mr. Bendig only. In a Ruling and Order [doc. # 83] of June 1, 2010,the Court denied that motion. Defendants filed the pending Motion for Summary Judgment [doc.# 86] on June 30, 2010.II.The standard of review this Court must apply when reviewing a motion for summaryjudgment pursuant to Rule 56 is a familiar one. Summary judgment is appropriate only when"the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is6
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 5"A dispute regarding a materialfact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for thenonmoving party." Williams v. Utica Coll. of Syracuse Univ., 453 F.3d 112, 116 (2d Cir. 2006)(quotation marks omitted). "The substantive law governing the case will identify those facts thatare material, and '[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under thegoverning law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.'" Bouboulis v. Transp.Workers Union of Am., 442 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue exists as toany material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986), and the Court mustresolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Anderson,477 U.S. at 255; Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008). If the moving partycarries its burden, the party opposing summary judgment may not rely on mere allegations ordenials, but rather must "cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record" to demonstrate that afact is genuinely disputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). "An affidavit or declaration used to[demonstrate that a fact is genuinely disputed] must be made on personal knowledge, set outfacts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent totestify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). In short, the nonmoving party "must domore than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "If the evidence ismerely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted."5 The wording and structure of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure changed as ofDecember 1, 2010, but there was no change in the substantive standard for summary judgment.7
Page 4 and 5: Resources on December 28, Ms. Goodw
Page 8 and 9: Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citat
Page 10: school. See Mem. in Opp'n [doc. # 9
Page 13 and 14: Goodwine made her complaint, Mr. Be
Page 15 and 16: Contrary to Plaintiffs' suggestion,
Page 17 and 18: In response to Defendants' stated r
Page 19 and 20: transpired after Mr. Bendig was dis
Page 21 and 22: was not overturned." See Mem. in Op
Page 23 and 24: demonstrate that the conduct occurr
Page 25 and 26: environment to be abusive" and "tha
Page 27 and 28: activity are protected under § 200
Page 29 and 30: defendant, acting under color of st
Page 31 and 32: At his deposition, Mr. Cardillo cou
Page 33 and 34: deficiency in an employer's interna
Page 35: 2010). Because the Court grants Def

Connecticut District Court decision, Goodwine v. DCF

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?