United States District Court, D. Connecticut
KEVIN R. BURKE, Plaintiff,
VISION GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, DONALD ROSS, JUNE PERRY, MARY KATE MOODY, and ANNA M. DLUGOSZ, Defendants.
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO
TIMELY SERVE DEFENDANTS AND MOTIONS TO EXTEND TIME, NUNC PRO
TUNC, TO EFFECT SERVICE
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 20, 2017, Kevin R. Burke (“Plaintiff”)
sued Vision Government Solutions, Inc., June Perry, and Mary
Kate Moody (the “Vision Defendants”), the Town of
Fairfield and Tax Assessor Donald Ross (the “Town
Defendants”), and Anna Dlugosz, alleging federal civil
rights violations and state law claims. Complaint, dated Nov.
20, 2018 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.
Vision Defendants and Ms. Dlugosz move to dismiss the
Complaint against them for failure to effect timely service.
See Motion to Dismiss, dated Apr. 20, 2018
(“Vision Defs.' Mot.”), ECF No. 15; Motion to
Dismiss, dated Apr. 24, 2018 (“Dlugosz Mot.”),
ECF No. 18.
Burke opposes both motions and moves instead for extensions
of time to serve the Complaint, nunc pro tunc, as to
the Vision Defendants and Ms. Dlugosz. Memorandum in
Opposition to Vision Defs.' Mot. and/or Motion for
Extension of Time, Nunc Pro Tunc, to Effect Service,
dated June 11, 2018 (“Pl.'s Opp. to Vision
Defs.' Mot.”), ECF No. 26; Memorandum in Opposition
to Dlugosz Mot. and/or Motion for Extension of Time, Nunc
Pro Tunc, to Effect Service, dated June 11, 2018
(“Pl.'s Opp. to Dlugosz Mot.”), ECF No. 27.
reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions to dismiss
for untimely service are DENIED, and Mr.
Burke's motions are GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2, 2014, the town of Fairfield, Connecticut contracted with
Defendant Vision Government Solutions, Inc.
(“Vision”), a Massachusetts corporation, to
assist the town's tax assessor, Donald Ross, in
undertaking a revaluation of real property located within the
corporate limits of Fairfield for the Grand List of October
1, 2015. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8. During the first phase of
the revaluation, “Data Collectors” or
“Listers” visited each property to physically
inspect the interior and measure the exterior of each
building. Id. ¶ 27.
Burke, a Fairfield resident, owns the house located at 2425
Merwins Lane in Fairfield. Id. ¶ 4. The house
is allegedly set off three hundred feet from the street in an
isolated, wooded conservation zone not visible to any
neighbors. Id. ¶ 35.
November 10, 2014, Mr. Burke alleges that he was cleaning his
handgun in his basement ahead of a trip to the shooting
range. Id. ¶ 36. As he ascended the stairs to
his kitchen, Mr. Burke allegedly saw a man looking through
his kitchen window. Id. Mr. Burke alleges that he
went outside and asked the man for identification and his
reason for being on the property. Id. ¶ 37. Mr.
Burke also claims he noticed a woman standing near the man.
Id. ¶ 40.
pair allegedly identified themselves as Aaron Goldberg and
Anna M. Dlugosz, informed Mr. Burke that they were employed
by Vision as Listers, and presented him with their
credentials. Id. ¶ 39. Mr. Burke alleges that
he then asked them to leave his property. Id. Mr.
Burke alleges that his handgun was visible in his holster,
and that he did not remove his handgun from the holster.
Id. ¶ 41.
Burke alleges that Mr. Goldberg and Ms. Dlugosz subsequently
reported to Mr. Ross that Mr. Burke came outside of his home
with a gun. Id. ¶¶ 30, 42.
November 19, 2014, Mr. Ross allegedly directed Mr. Goldberg
and Ms. Dlugosz to file police reports about the
encounter-even though an officer from the Fairfield Police
Department allegedly told Mr. Ross that Mr. Burke was within
his rights and that the police would not take any action were
such a report filed. Id. ¶¶ 44, 44(a)-(d).
In making their reports, Mr. Goldberg and Ms. Dlugosz
allegedly stated that Mr. Burke had pointed a handgun at
them. Id. ¶¶ 46, 48. When a Fairfield
police officer called Mr. Burke about the report, Mr. Burke
allegedly stated that he had not removed his gun from its
holster during the encounter. Id. ¶ 51.
Ross also allegedly used the Appraisal Vision Computer
Assisted Mass. Appraisal (CAMA) system to record a notation
in a Visit History for Mr. Burke's address: “No
Callback Record: Owner Came Out With Gun Pointed At Data
Collectors Police Report Filed.” Id. ¶
57. Mr. Burke claims he was never informed of this notation,
nor was he provided an opportunity to rebut it. Id.
2016, Ms. Dlugosz sued Mr. Burke in state court, alleging
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id.
¶¶ 52-53; see also Complaint, Dlugosz
v. Burke, No. CV16-6015991-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 15,
2016). Mr. Burke also sued Mr. Goldberg in a separate state
court case alleging trespass to land. Pl.'s Opp. to
Vision Defs.' Mot. at 2; see also Complaint,
Burke v. Goldberg, CV16-6061060 (Conn. Super. Ct.
Nov. 16, 2016).