United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
have moved to dismiss Counts Three, Five, and Six of Ms.
Novo's Complaint. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.
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.
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.
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.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.
9, 2018, Ms. Novo filed a Complaint in Connecticut Superior
Court. Compl., ECF No. 1-1.
30, 2018, Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court under
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, ¶
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.
September 19, 2018, Defendants moved for partial dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mot. to
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.
October 23, 2018, Ms. Novo objected to the motion to dismiss.
Obj. to Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl. Obj.”), ECF No. 19.
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.
10, 2019, the Court convened a hearing on the motion to
dismiss and the motion to amend the Complaint. Min. Entry,
ECF No. 25.