Jones v. Deutsch Memorandum on Behalf of Defendant in Support of Cross-Motion, Joining in Motion to Dismiss and Moving for Summary Judgement of Co-Defendants
Public Court Documents
December 19, 1988

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jones v. Deutsch Memorandum on Behalf of Defendant in Support of Cross-Motion, Joining in Motion to Dismiss and Moving for Summary Judgement of Co-Defendants, 1988. da14b178-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/baf94b70-c8dd-465a-8266-0940912e6c1d/jones-v-deutsch-memorandum-on-behalf-of-defendant-in-support-of-cross-motion-joining-in-motion-to-dismiss-and-moving-for-summary-judgement-of-co-defendants. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Copied!
•A * ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------- x YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, VANESSA RAMOS, GABRIEL RAMOS, THOMAS 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) MYERS, LISA MYERS, THOMAS MYERS, JR., LINDA MYERS, SHAWN MEYERS, ODELL A. JONES, MELVIN DIXON, GERI BACON, MARY WILLIAMS, JAMES HODGES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., WHITE PLAINS/GREENBURGH BRANCH, and NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, Plaintiffs, - against - LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Defendants x MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION, JOINING IN MOTION OF CO-DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS, FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND FOR AN AWARD OR SANCTIONS AND ADDITIONALLY _____________MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT_______ Q U I N N 6l S U H K Attokvkyn AMI CorvHKijjORK at Lak 1 7 0 H A M I L T O N A V E N T K W m r K P i .a i v k . N e w Y o r k l o w o i ( t i l 4 i U41I-OHOO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK--------------------------------------- x YVONNE JONES, ANITA JORDAN, APRIL JORDAN, LATOYA JORDAN, ANNA RAMOS, LIZETTE RAMOS, VANESSA RAMOS, GABRIEL RAMOS, THOMAS 88 Civ. 7738 (GLG) MYERS, LISA MYERS, THOMAS MYERS, JR., LINDA MYERS, SHAWN MEYERS, ODELL A. JONES, MELVIN DIXON, GERI BACON, MARY WILLIAMS, JAMES HODGES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., WHITE PLAINS/GREENBURGH BRANCH, and NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, Plaintiffs, - against - LAURENCE DEUTSCH, COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN, STEVEN NEIL GOLDRICH, MICHAEL JAMES TONE, COALITION OF UNITED PEOPLES, INC., and ANTHONY F. VETERAN, as Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Defendants. x MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT COLIN EDWIN KAUFMAN IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION, JOINING IN MOTION OF CO-DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS, FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND FOR AN AWARD OR SANCTIONS AND ADDITIONALLY _____________MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT____________ Preliminary Statement This memorandum of law is submitted in support of co- defendants' motion dated December 12, 1988, for the reasons and on the basis of the authorities in support of their motion, as well as for the reasons and on the basis of the authorities set forth herein. Additionally, this memorandum is submitted in support of defendant Colin Edwin Kaufman's (hereinafter "Kaufman") motion for summary judgment in his favor, on the grounds that based on the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, defendant Kaufman is entitled to a judgment in his favor against plaintiffs. Nothing would be served by this defendant covering the same grounds as co-defendants and repeating the arguments advanced in support of their motion. It is this defendant's position (1) that it is obvious both factually and legally that plaintiffs have not alleged facts entitling them to the relief sought in their complaint and indeed, that there is such an utter lack of merit in their contentions, that under no fairly alleged factual scenario or under any valid legal theory, could plaintiffs make out a claim for relief against this defendant; (2) that the sole purpose in bringing this action was to terrorize the named defendants and some 500 other residents of the Town of Greenburg into foregoing the expression of their views through the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech, freedom peaceably to assembly and to petition their government? and (3) that the mala fides of plaintiffs' counsel are so egregious and patent that an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to defendants, and the imposition of sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel is not only justified but required. Factual Assertion Against Defendant Kaufman It is alleged (Par. 6 of the Complaint) that Kaufman is a natural person who resides at 8 Hartford Road (a/k/a Hartford Lane) White Plains, New York 10603. Paragraph 9 alleges various other persons participated as co-conspirators with defendants in the violations set forth, which consist of the expression of opinions and the attempted exercise of rights through means of expression absolutely protected by the First Amendment to the 2 Constitution of the United States. Defendant Kaufman (Paragraph 25) is, finally, alleged to have agreed in a petition pursuant to the Village Law of the State of New York, to accept service of certain papers in connection with a proceeding for incorporation. The foregoing constitute the entirety of the factual allegations against defendant Kaufman. Based upon the fact that he is natural person with a residence who agreed to accept service of legal papers, plaintiffs have brought the awesome power of the federal judiciary down on this defendant, alleging that he conspired to violate the civil rights of others by exercising his constitutional rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition - all clearly protected by the First Amendment. This defendant is accused (without a shred of evidence to support the accusation) of being a racist and possessing racially inspired motivation in the exercise of these First Amendment rights. From defendant Kaufman's letter of January 21, 1988, (Exhibit A to Kaufman affidavit) it is clear that his motivation was most decidedly not racially inspired, but even if one assumes that nearly one year before the institution of this action, this defendant had the omniscience to see himself in this lawsuit and draft a wholly self-serving document, it is of no moment, because a minimum of legal research would have disclosed that motivation is not an issue when viewing the exercise of one's First Amendment Rights, at least in the context of instant case. Weiss v. Willow Tree Civil Association. 467 F. Supp. 803 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). 3 Argument It is difficult to believe that even these plaintiff's counsel would have pursued defendant Kaufman in a similar lawsuit if he had done exactly what he is alleged to have done here, but without the existence of the corporate defendant Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. The existence of that entity does not make defendant Kaufman's activities actionable. What Judge Weinfeld held in respect the formation of a civic association in Weiss v. Willow Tree, supra. is particularly instructive: " . . . Finally, the formation of the Willow Tree Civic Association, even for the purpose of formally organizing the community against the plans of the plaintiffs, was constitutionally privileged. To label the defendants' association a 'convert conspiracy' does not strip it of the guarantee of the First Amendment without some basis to support a claim that the Association sought to do more than lobby for a particular point of view. The defendants had every right to band together for the advancement of beliefs and ideas, however, unpalatable the ideas or whatever the underlying motive." id. 817-818. As pointed out in the co-defendants' memorandum of law submitted in support of the main motion under consideration, the lack of legal or factual merit to plaintiffs' claims is clear beyond peradventure. It is obvious that the proponents of the homeless housing project were being frustrated by the political and litigation activities of some defendants herein (together with 500 others) in opposing that project. It is also obvious, that proponents of this project, by wrapping themselves in the flag of racial rectitude, persuaded attorneys who ought to know better, to run roughshod over defendant Kaufman's rights. It is submitted that the violations of law and of plaintiffs' supposed 4 rights urged against defendant Kaufman in this case are so completely insupportable that only two conclusions are possible: either plaintiffs counsel failed to conduct any legal or factual research, or, in utter disregard of the facts and the clear parameters of the law, based upon their distorted view of righteousness, they decided to forge ahead on the premise that those whose motivation is impure or does not coincide with their own, are not entitled to Constitutional rights and privileges. The former is inexcusable and the latter is totally repugnant to the very foundations of our society. The timing of the service of the summons and complaint in this matter, and the pandering to the press that followed, suggest that the true motivation in bringing this lawsuit was the defeat of the petition which the allegedly conspiring defendants had the audacity to pursue, and the stifling of opposition to the homeless housing project. Certainly plaintiffs spent little time or attention to pleading requirements in the drafting of their complaint. It is submitted the few lawyers with anything approaching a viable claim, would turn out a product which so completely ignores the simple rules of proper pleading. Rule 8, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, requires only brevity, directness, plain speaking and simplicity. Paragraphs 1 through 3 of the complaint herein go on for nearly three pages. Paragraphs 10 through 20 allege endless facts about the plight of the homeless and the wonderfulness of West HELP, the arguably relevant portions of which could have been set forth far more succinctly. "Defendant" Veteran is glorified for a few 5 paragraphs (pages 13 though 15 of the Complaint) and then follows the coup de grace: ten paragraphs citing and quoting from various Federal and State constitutional and statutory provisions. It is only when one sits down and attempts conscientiously to answer the complaint in this action that the true departure from proper pleading can be appreciated. (Even Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is flaunted by plaintiffs who ignore the fact that exactly half of the individual plaintiffs are minors who cannot sue in their own right. It could not have been inordinately difficult to have asserted these minors' claims through their parents who, it appears, are also plaintiffs.)* *In another era, plaintiffs' pleading might well have been the object of criticism and sanctions such as described in the English case of Mvlward v. Welden (1566) (quoted in Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfq. Co. v. Holman. 150 App. Div. 678, 679, 135 NY Supp. 766 (1st Dept. 1912); aff'd 208 NY 583, 101 N.E. 885 (1913): "For as much as it now appeared to this court. . . that the said replication doth amount to six score sheets of paper and yet all the matter thereof which is pertinent might have been well contrived in sixteen sheets of paper * * * and because his lordship is of opinion that such an abuse is not in any sort to be tolerated - proceedings of a malicious purpose to increase the defendant's charge and being fraught with such impertinent matter not fit for the court. It is therefore ordered that the Warden . . . shall cut a hole in the midst of the same engrossed Replication which is delivered unto him for that purpose, and put the said [plaintiff's] head through the same hole, and so let the same Replication hang about his shoulders with the written side hanging outward, and then, the same so hanging, shall lead the said [plaintiff] bearheaded and barefaced round about Westminster Hall, whilst the Courts are sitting, and shall show him at the Bar of every of the three Courts within the Hall, and then shall take him back again to the Fleet, and keep him prisoner until he shall have paid to her Majesty for a fine and 20 nobles to the defendant for his costs in respect of the aforesaid abuse." 6 Plaintiff's have at best placed support for their claim against defendant Kaufman on speculation and conjecture which cannot defeat his motion. None of the specific factual allegations required in this Circuit to support an alleged civil rights violation are made against defendant Kaufman, nor could they be fairly alleged. Plaintiffs have indeed corralled all of the facts assertable against this defendant: he is a natural person, a resident who had the misfortune to agree to accept service of certain papers in connection with the processing of a petition under state law. This Court's rulings in the following cases are in point: Courtemanche v. Enlarged City School District 686 F. Supp. 1025, 1028 (1988); Rockland County Sheriff's Deputies Ass'n v. Grant. 670 F. Supp. 566 (1987); Raitpont v. Chemical Bank, et al.. 74 FRD 128 (1977). Particularly compelling, regarding the requirement for particularity in pleading facts in civil rights cases is this Court's reasoning in Pettman v. U.S. Chess Federation. 675 F. Supp. 175, 177 (1987): "One court in this circuit has posited that a particularity exception to the general rule of notice pleading exists in civil rights cases. We find that court's reasoning instructive: 'The reason for this exception is clear . . . A substantial number of [civil rights] cases are frivolous or should be litigated in state courts. They all cause defendants - public officials, policemen and citizens alike - considerable expenses, vexation and perhaps unfounded notoriety. It is an important public policy to weed out the frivolous and unsubstantial cases at an early stage of the litigation, and still keep the doors of the federal courts open to legitimate claims.'" 7 Nor is the factual void in the claims against defendant Kaufman filled by vague, unsupported and generalized conclusionary allegations of conspiracy, Richards v. New York State Deot. of Corr. Services. 572 F. Supp. 1168, 1174 (1983), which, if taken as absolutely true, and stripped of plaintiffs' adjectives and adverbs, state that defendant Kaufman, by being a natural person, a resident in the Town of Greenburg, and by agreeing to be an agent for the service of papers in connection with a petition under the law of New York, conspired with some of the other defendants and 500 other individuals in the peaceful exercise of their First Amendment rights. It is submitted that plaintiffs here are one step ahead of the plaintiffs in L.S.S. Leasing v. U.S. General Services Administration. 579 F. Supp. 1565 (1984) where this Court recognized, at p. 1575, that plaintiffs there were attempting to succeed in the federal courts where they had failed politically. Here, feeling the impact of the legal and political opposition to the proposed homeless housing project, plaintiffs counsel decided to resort to the federal courts to attempt to stamp out political opposition, before that opposition had a chance to succeed. Few uses of the courts suggest themselves which could conceivably be more antithetical to the historical and philosophical underpinnings of this country. Any thoughtful person reflecting on what exactly is being done here ought first to be horrified and then outraged. The assertions in the complaint against defendant Kaufman are "hogwash" (Crialer v. 8 Penzoil Company 687 F. Supp. 120, 124 (1988) and this Court ought to deal with this situation as it did in Crigler. Conclusion The complaint against all of the individual defendants herein should be dismissed, defendant Kaufman should be granted judgment in his favor against plaintiffs, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees should be made to all of the individual defendants' together with appropriate costs, and sanctions should be imposed against plaintiffs' counsel. Dated: White Plains, New York December 19, 1988 Quinn & Suhr Attorneys for Defendant Colin Edwin Kaufman 170 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 949-0800 Of Counsel: Timothy C. Quinn, Jr. 9