United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Clifford Onofrio (“Onofrio”) brings this
diversity action against Raymond Savoy and Stephanie Savoy
(“Savoys”) alleging various state law claims.
This case is - in essence - a dispute between neighbors.
Onofrio's claims arise from police responding to a noise
complaint made by the Savoys on December 12, 2012. Now before
the Court are the Savoys' Motions for Summary Judgment.
[Doc. ## 36, 37]. For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants the motions and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint it
commenced this action on November 25, 2015. He filed an
Amended Complaint on December 20, 2016, seeking to assert the
following claims against the Savoys: intentional infliction
of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander, and
malicious prosecution. On November 24, 2017, the Savoys moved
for summary judgment on all counts. Onofrio filed an
opposition on December 15, 2017. In violation of Local Rule
56, Onofrio's opposition did not include a 56(a)(2)
Statement of Facts in Opposition to Summary
Judgment. The Court ordered Onofrio to submit this
statement. He did so on February 5, 2018.
2011, Onofrio purchased a condominium, Apartment 2B, in
Naugatuck, Connecticut, and hired a contractor to do some
renovation work. The Savoys lived next door, in Apartment 2A.
Onofrio alleges that the Savoys did not like him because they
thought the contractor who was doing the renovations made too
much noise. [Plaintiff's Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, Doc. #
42, at ¶ 7]. According to Onofrio, the Savoys began to
retaliate against him by banging walls, dropping things, and
making noise in their own apartment. [Id.].
impetus of the instant action occurred on December 12, 2012.
On that date, several Naugatuck police officers were
dispatched to the Savoy residence to respond to their
complaint of noise coming from Onofrio's apartment. The
Savoys told the responding officers that Onofrio had been
hitting walls, screaming, and slamming doors that
They also told the officers that similar incidents had been
occurring for about a year and a half, and that these
incidents were distracting and disturbing, and frightening to
their young family members. Onofrio was issued an infraction
for creating a public disturbance in violation of Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 53a-181a in connection with the December 12,
2012 police encounter. In July 2013, a nolle
prosequi was entered with respect to the infraction
issued against Onofrio.
Savoys maintain that all of the information they provided to
the police on December 12, 2012 was true and accurate to the
best of their knowledge. [Defendants' Rule 56(a)(1)
Statement, Doc. # 36-1, at ¶ 5]. They deny intentionally
causing any type of disturbance to distress Onofrio, and deny
any involvement in the police's decision to issue Onofrio
an infraction for creating a public disturbance on December
12, 2012. [Id. at ¶¶ 6-7]. They aver that
any emotional distress Onofrio experienced was a result of
his chronic mental illness and not connected to his
experience in the condominium. [Id. at ¶¶
alleges that his son, his health aides, and his friends had
all also heard the Savoys being loud and disruptive.
[Plaintiff's Rule 56(a)(2) Statement, Doc. # 42, at
¶ 5]. He claims that the Savoys, who have connections to
the Naugatuck police department, called the police because they
wanted to intimidate him and cause his arrest, and believed
that their connections would make them more credible to the
officers. [Id. at ¶ 6]. Plaintiff states he was
traumatized by his arrest on December 12, 2012, and as a
result of it, he expended legal fees to resolve the charge.
[Id. at ¶¶ B3, 7].
court shall grant summary judgment if the moving party
demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A material fact is
identified by the substantive law under which the claim is
brought, and is one that may make a difference in the outcome
of a case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is
“genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Id. The burden is on the moving party
to demonstrate the absence of any material factual issue
genuinely in dispute. Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. London
Am. Int'l Corp. Ltd., 664 F.2d 348, 351 (2d Cir.
court's function in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment is not “to weigh the evidence and determine
the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 249. In making this determination, the court should review
all of the evidence in the record and resolve all ambiguities
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). The court, however, may not make
credibility determinations. Id. “Only when
reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the
evidence is summary judgment proper.” Bryant v.
Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991), cert.
denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991). Stated differently,
“if there is any evidence in the record that could
reasonably support a jury's verdict for the non-moving
party, ” summary judgment must be denied. Marvel
Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 286 (2d Cir.
2002). Keeping these standards in mind, the Court discusses
Onofrio's claims in turn.
Intentional Infliction of ...