Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Novo v. City of Danbury

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

July 12, 2019

KELLY NOVO, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DANBURY, DAVID PARDOVICH, CHRISTOPHER RINK, ERIC CIEPLY, & PATRICK RIDENHOUR, Defendants.

          RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND AMEND

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Kelly Novo (“Plaintiff”) has sued David Pardovich, Christopher Rink, and Eric Cieply, officers of the Danbury Police Department, as well as Patrick Ridenhour, the Chief of Police, and the City of Danbury (“Danbury, ” and together, “Defendants”) for negligence, recklessness, and violation of her state and federal rights. Compl., ECF No. 1-1, ¶¶ 3-7, 21, 23.

         Defendants have moved to dismiss Counts Three, Five, and Six of Ms. Novo's Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.

         Ms. Novo also has moved to amend her Complaint to remove the claim for emotional distress damages. Mot. for Ct.'s Leave to Am. Compl., ECF No. 20.

         For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The negligent training and supervision claim is dismissed with respect to Chief Ridenhour, but the claims against the City of Danbury and the claim of recklessness remain in the case.

         Because this ruling may result in Ms. Novo seeking to amend her Complaint yet again, Ms. Novo's motion to amend her Complaint, ECF No. 20 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal by August 9, 2019.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         On December 21, 2016, when officers Pardovich, Rink, and Cieply arrived, Ms. Novo was at home. Id. ¶¶ 3-7. The officers allegedly tried to enter Ms. Novo's home and she denied them access. Id. ¶ 8. The officers allegedly entered anyway. Id. ¶ 9. “Suddenly and without warning, ” the officers allegedly made physical contact with Ms. Novo. Id. ¶ 10. As a result, Ms. Novo allegedly suffered a “Grade 3 midsubstance ACL tear in her right knee; contusion of the right posterolateral tibial plateau; [and] injury to the left arm.” Id. ¶ 14. Ms. Novo claims that she required medical treatment, incurred expenses, experienced suffering, was unable to work, and will continue to experience financial losses and physical pain. Id. ¶¶ 15-20.

         Ms. Novo alleges that Chief Ridenhour negligently trained and supervised his officers. Id. [Third Count] ¶¶ 12-15. She also claims that the City of Danbury has a general policy, pattern, or practice of “not disciplining police officers for their conduct thereby sanctioning [their] actions, ” id. [Fifth Count] ¶ 21 and willfully or deliberately failing to supervise or train its officers regarding Danbury residents' legal rights. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Ms. Novo argues that the police officers, their Chief, and Danbury should be held liable for her injuries, all allegedly sustained on December 21, 2016. Id. [Third Count] ¶ 15, [Fifth Count] ¶ 23.

         B. Procedural Background

         On May 9, 2018, Ms. Novo filed a Complaint in Connecticut Superior Court. Compl., ECF No. 1-1.

         On May 30, 2018, Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, ¶ 2-3.

         On July 13, 2018, the parties filed their report under Federal Rule of Procedure 26(f). Joint Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, ECF No. 10. The Court then convened a telephonic scheduling conference, Min. Entry, ECF No. 12, and issued a scheduling order, ECF No. 13.

         On September 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. to Dismiss.

         On October 9, 2018, Ms. Novo moved for an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss. First Mot. for Extension of Time to File Resp./Reply, ECF No. 17. The Court granted Ms. Novo's motion. Order, ECF No. 18.

         On October 23, 2018, Ms. Novo objected to the motion to dismiss. Obj. to Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl. Obj.”), ECF No. 19.

         On March 13, 2019, Ms. Novo moved to amend her Complaint, and set a response deadline of April 3, 2019. Mot. for Ct.'s Leave to Am. Compl.

         On July 10, 2019, the Court convened a hearing on the motion to dismiss and the motion to amend the Complaint. Min. Entry, ECF No. 25.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.