Page 36 - CLT041221

36 ¦ APRIL 12, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW • CIVIL PROCEDURE

Court Granted in Part, Denied in Part Court Denied in Part Municipal
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
Judgment In Lawsuit Alleging Excessive in Lawsuit Regarding Plaintiff’s
Force During Arrest Companion Animal

CASE: Diaz v. City of Hartford Police Dep’t CASE: Gerte v. Borough of Naugatuck
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-01113 DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-1511
COURT OPINION BY: Dooley COURT OPINION BY: Arterton
DATE: March 31, 2021 • PAGES: 25 DATE: March 26, 2021 • PAGES: 18
This civil rights action was a result of a car Plaintiff was transported to the hospital for
chase in which plaintiffs alleged that they emergency medical treatment. At the time of the
were subjected to unnecessary and excessive emergency, plaintiff was with his companion ani-
force by defendants, police officers involved mal Jamie. A police officer took Jamie and deliv-
in their arrest. Plaintiffs brought both state ered her to plaintiff’s neighbor, defendant Jean
and federal law claims against numerous of- Dobbin. Plaintiff contacted Naugatuck animal
ficers. Defendants moved for summary judg- control after he was released to recover Jamie,
ment. The court granted the motion as to but was told that Jamie was not there. One of
some defendants and denied others. The plaintiff’s friends then told him that he thought
court first addressed plaintiffs’ claim that de- Jamie was with defendant Dobbin. Defendant
fendants violated their Fourth Amendment Dobbin refused to return the dog and defendant
rights by their excessive use of force during Officers Newman and Hunt refused to help plain-
plaintiffs’ arrest. Defendants argued they tiff file criminal charges. Plaintiff filed a com-
were entitled to qualified immunity. The plaint against defendant Dobbin in state court,
court analyzed the liability of the underlying which held plaintiff was the rightful owner and
claim first. It relied on plaintiff Diaz’s testi- was entitled to immediate possession. Plaintiff
mony that after he surrendered to the various then brought a federal suit against defendants, al-
officers, the officers continued to use baton leging deprivation of rights under state and fed-
strikes, a taser, and punches to effectuate his eral laws. All defendants moved to dismiss. The
arrest. Therefore, the court found there was court denied defendant Dobbin’s motion to dis-
a genuine issue of material fact as to whether miss, and granted in part municipal defendants’
defendants’ use of force was reasonable under motion. The court began with plaintiff’s §1983
the circumstances. It denied the motion as to claims against defendants. The court found that
those officers. The court then analyzed plain- plaintiff adequately pleaded that municipal de-
tiff Perez’ claims. Perez testified that after the fendants used their power to unconstitutionally
car stopped, he put his hands up. However, deprive him of his property by taking his dog,
there was no evidence that some of defen- refusing to return it to him, and telling him he
dants used any force on plaintiff Perez while would be arrested if he kept asking about his dog.
he was in the car, and plaintiff Perez did not The court then turned to plaintiff’s due process
offer any evidence that countered defendants’ claims. Plaintiff alleged that defendants deprived
sworn statements that the force used was nec- him of due process by refusing to return his dog
essary to effectuate his arrest given plaintiff until he obtained a court order. The court found
Perez resisted after he exited the car. There- his claim was sufficient; defendants interfered
fore, the court granted those defendants’ mo- with plaintiff’s interest in his dog, and the cost of
tions for summary judgment. The court pro- providing him with basic information about the
ceeded to discuss the various state law claims dog’s whereabouts and retrieval information was
raised by plaintiffs, including recklessness, in- minimal. The court dismissed plaintiff’s unrea-
tentional infliction of emotional distress, and sonable seizure claim, finding that plaintiff only
negligence. The court found that there was a challenged the unlawful retention of the dog, not
genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants the initial seizure. The court addressed municipal
were entitled to governmental immunity as to defendants’ qualified immunity argument at the
those charges. end. It noted that since at least one of plaintiff’s

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune