United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Page 117
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 118
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 119
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 120
Elizabeth I. Hook, Braxton Hook LLC, Meredith C. Braxton,
Greenwich, CT, for Plaintiff.
Allison Levene, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP, Hartford, CT, Beck S.
Fineman, Ryan Ryan Deluca LLP, Bridgeport, CT, Catherine S.
Nietzel, Jonathan Zellner, Ryan Ryan Deluca, LLP, Gregory J.
Bennici, John Peloso, F.X., Jr., Robinson & Cole LLP,
Stamford, CT, John A. Blazi, Law Offices of John A. Blazi,
Waterbury, CT, Holly G. Rogers, Melick & Porter LLP,
Southbury, CT, James C. Riley, John Hendele, IV, Whitman,
Breed, Abbott & Morgan LLC, Greenwich, CT, Jonathan R.
Donnellan, Hearst Corporation Office of General Counsel,
Diego Ibarguen, New York, NY, for Defendants.
RULING
ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Stefan
R. Underhill, United States District Judge.
Brian
Zuro, Sarah Zuro, and their child, Charles Zuro
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") have brought the
instant action against the Town of Darien; the Darien Board
of Education and several of its former and current members;
the Darien Athletic Foundation, Inc. and several of its
members and officers; employees and agents of the Darien
Public Schools, including the former Superintendent and the
Darien High School football coach; an editor of the
Darien Times and the Hersam Acorn Newspapers, LLC
(d/b/a the Darien Times); a reporter for the
Stamford Advocate and the Hearst Media Services
Connecticut, LLC (d/b/a the Stamford Advocate); and
Page 121
Nancy Trifone Ferrarese (collectively,
"Defendants").
The
suit arises out of alleged harassment and defamation that
followed Sarah and Brian Zuro's efforts to secure
adequate special education services for their children. The
complaint asserts violations under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"),
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, negligence, defamation,
assault, and battery.
Currently
before the court are seven motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), as well as four special
motions to dismiss brought under Connecticut's recently
enacted anti-SLAPP statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-196a.
See Doc. Nos. 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 127. For the reasons that follow, I
deny the special motions to dismiss and
grant the Rule 12(b) motions.
I.
Standard of Review
A.
Rule 12(b)(1)
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), "[a] case is
properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction...
when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional
power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United
States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). The party
seeking to invoke a court's jurisdiction bears the burden
of establishing such jurisdiction. Thompson v. Cnty. of
Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 249 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S.Ct. 2197,
45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)).
"[T]he
court must take all facts alleged in the complaint as true
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
plaintiff," but "jurisdiction must be shown
affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from
the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting
it." Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd.,
547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations
omitted). In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a district
court may refer to evidence outside the pleadings.
Makarova, 201 F.3d at 113.
B.
Standard of Review under Rule 12(b)(6)
A
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) is designed "merely to assess the legal
feasibility of a complaint, not to assay the weight of
evidence which might be offered in support thereof."
Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch
Commodities, 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting
Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir.
1980)).
When
deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as
true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiffs, and decide whether it is plausible that
plaintiffs have a valid claim for relief. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d
868 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007);
Leeds v. Meltz, 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996).
Under
Twombly, "[f]actual allegations must be enough
to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,"
and assert a cause of action with enough heft to show
entitlement to relief and "enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." 550 U.S. at
555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ("While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported
by factual allegations."). The plausibility standard set
forth in Twombly and Iqbal obligates the
Page 122
plaintiff to "provide the grounds of his entitlement to
relief" through more than "labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct.
1955 (quotation marks omitted). Plausibility at the pleading
stage is nonetheless distinct from probability, and "a
well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy
judge that actual proof of [the claims] is improbable, and
... recovery is very remote and unlikely." Id.
at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quotation marks omitted).
II.
Background
A.
Factual Allegations[1]
Sarah
Zuro was elected as a member to the Darien Board of Education
("the Board") in 2012. Am. Compl., Doc. No. 101, at
¶ 4. Her younger child ("Sibling 1") had been
receiving inadequate special education services from the
Darien Schools, and in the spring of 2015, Sibling 1's
planning and placement team — which comprised of
school personnel, Sarah Zuro, and her husband, Brian Zuro
— determined that Sibling 1 required additional and
different services in order to obtain the education to which
Sibling 1 was entitled. Id. Sarah and Brian Zuro
advocated for ...