15-20 49

Pisto lesi v. Ca labre se



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R CU I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S BY S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E CE D ENT I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AFT E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D BY FE D E R

A L R ULE O F A P PE L L

A TE P R OCE D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L OC

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D OCU M ENT F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE FE D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O PY O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D BY C OU

N S E L

.
At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in the Ci ty of New York, on th e 1 day of De cembe r, tw o tho usand sixt een. s t

PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS,

ROSEM ARY S . POO LER,

Circu it Ju dges. GEOFF REY W . CRA

WFORD , * Distr ict Judge.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RENAT O PIS TOLES I, AL LTOW, INC. , ACTION AUT OMOTI VE CO LLISS ION & MECHA NICAL INC. , Plain tiffs -Appe llant s,

-v.- 15-20 49-cv

CARL CALAB RESE, indi vidua lly, MARTI N NOVIC K, in dividually , MAT THEW ALEXA NDER, indi vidua lly, JENNI FER NIZNI K, in dividually , PAU L ITALIANO , indiv idual ly, ALAN WEITLI CH,

Judg e Geo ffrey W. C rawfo rd, U nitedStat es Di stric t * Court for the D istri ct of Verm ont, sitti ng by desi gnati on.

1indiv idual ly, JOHN V ISENT IN, V ILLAGE

OF WA PPINGERS FALLS, DENI SE CALABRE SE

Defen dants -Appe llees ,

BRIANSMIT H, in dividually , JOS H KEMLAGE, i ndivi duall y, J. ERNS , indiv idual ly, S EAN MCNEIL , indiv idual ly, M .A. RODRIGUEZ, indiv idual ly, R

AFAEL TORRES, indiv idual ly, P . CAP PAREL LI, indiv idual ly, M

ARK L IBERM

ANN, indiv idual ly, M

ARK KEMLAGE, indiv idual ly,

Defen dants

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

FOR A PPELLANT: MICHA EL H. SUSS MAN, Sussm an & Watki ns, G oshen , NY.

FOR A PPELL EES: MONTG OMERY L. E FFING ER, O’Con nor, McGui nness , Con te, Doyle , Ole son, Watso n & L oftus LLP, White Plai ns, N Y.

Appea l fro m the judg ment of th e Uni ted S tates Dist rict Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Seibe l, As pen, JJ.).

UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJUDGED AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be AFFIR MED I N PART AND VACATED A ND RE MANDE D IN PART

.
Plain tiffs -appe llant s Ren ato P istol esi, Allto w, In c., and A ction Auto motiv e Col lisio n andMech anica l, In c., a ppeal from the j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct Co urt f or the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Seibe l, As pen, JJ.). We
assum e the part ies’ famil iarit y wit h the unde rlyin g fac ts, the p roced ural histo ry, a nd th e iss ues p resen ted f or re view.

1. A ppell ants reque st a new t rial on th eir F irst Amend ment- basedreta liati on cl aim, argui ng th at th e dis trict court impr operl y exc ludedevid ence. App ellan ts co mplai n that the d istri ct co urt w rongl y exc luded(a) three exhi bits purpo rting to d emons trate the defen dants ’ dis parat e treat ment of Ac tion and A lltow comp ared to ot her t owing compa nies, and (b) t estim ony o f a f ormer empl oyee of th e

2Villa ge of Wapp inger s Fal ls (“ the V illag e”), purpo rting to

demon strat e Pol ice C ommis sione r Ren ato C alabr ese’s anim us towar d Pis toles i. T he di stric t cou rt ex clude d the evid ence
on re levan ce gr ounds

.
“We r eview a di stric t cou rt’s evide ntiar y rul ings defer entia lly, mindf ul of its super ior p ositi on to asse ss relev ancy
. . . .” Unite d Sta tes v . Abu -Jiha ad, 6 30 F. 3d 102, 131 ( 2d Ci r. 20 10). We w ill r evers e a d istri ct co urt
on an evid entia ry is sue o nly i f it commi ts an abus e of discr etion , whi ch re quire s us to fi nd th at “t he tr ial j udge ruledin a n arb itrar y andirra tiona l fas hion. ” Un ited State s v. Dhins a, 24 3 F.3 d 635 , 649 (2d Cir. 2001) (quo ting Unite d Sta tes v . Pip ola, 83 F. 3d 55 6, 56 6 (2dCir. 1996 )).

a. A ppell ants argue that the docum entar y exh ibits were relev ant b ecaus e the y pro videdcirc umsta ntial supp ort f or their asse rtion that the Villa ge re movedAllt ow fr om th e Tow List becau se of Pist olesi ’s pr otect ed sp eech. The exhi bits 1 relat e to Calab rese’ s tre atmen t of two i nstan ces i n whi ch the V illag e rec eivedcomp laint s abo ut ot her b usine sses on the T ow Li st. Pisto lesi argue s tha t the exhi bits demon strat e tha t Cal abres e dea lt wi th th ese c ompan ies m ore lenie ntly than he di d wit h All tow a fter a cus tomer compl ainedabou t All tow’s serv ice, there by su ggest ing t hat Calab rese’ s tre atmen t of Allto w was moti vatedby r etali atory animu s.

Howev er, t he co mplai nts a bout these two other comp anies diffe r in mater ial r espec ts fr om th e com plain t abo ut Al ltow. For e xampl e, th e tot al am ount of Al ltow’ s cha lleng ed bi ll
was c onsid erabl y hig her t han t he am ounts char ged b y the other comp anies ; andthe owner s of the o ther compa nies took
corre ctive meas ures, such as r eprim andin g the ir em ploye es or lower ing t he to tal b ill, where as Pi stole si to ok no such

App ellan ts al so as sert that the e xclud ed do cumen ts 1 and t estim ony w ere r eleva nt be cause they woul d und ermin e a defen se po tenti ally avail able to th e def endan ts-ap pelle es. The a ppell ants conte nd th at th e evi dence woul d be relev ant to bo th th is de fense and the a ppell ants’ prim a fac ie retal iatio n cla im “[ f]or simil ar re asons .” A ppell ant’s Openi ng Br ., at 20. Sinc e we find that the e viden ce ca n be prope rly e xclud ed as irre levan t to the a ppell ants’ retal iatio n cla im, t he sa me is true rega rding the defen dants -appe llees ’ pos sible defe nse.

3measu res. Beca use o f the se fa ctual diff erenc es, w e can not

say t hat t he di stric t cou rt’s concl usion that the exhib its
were irrel evant to t he Fi rst Amendm ent c laim was “ arbit rary or ir ratio nal.” Dhi nsa, 243 F .3d a t 649

.

Even were we to deci de th at th e exh ibits were rele vant,
we wo uld n ot or der a new trial . Be cause of t he ma rgina l proba tive value of t he ev idenc e, an d the needto l itiga te the p artic ulars of w hat o ccurr ed in thes e oth er tr ansac tions and c ompla ints, the distr ict c ourt couldprop erly exclu de this evide nce o n the basi s tha t its prob ative valu e wou ld be subst antia lly o utwei ghed by un due d elay. See Fed. R. E vid. 403.

b. T he di stric t cou rt al so di d not abus e its discr etion by e xclud ing a s irr eleva nt th e tes timon y of John Fento n, a forme r Vil lage emplo yee. Pist olesi asse rts t hat Fento n wou ld te stify that , soo n aft er Pi stole si’s prote cted speec h, Ca labre se ca lled Pisto lesi a “sc umbag ” andsaidhe “inte nded to ru n Mr. Pist olesi out of th e vil lage. ” J. App’x at 1 433-3 4. H oweve r, th e dis trict cour t was skep tical that Fento n’s t estim ony w ould be pr obati ve of whet her Pisto lesi’ s pro tecte d spe ech c ausedAllt ow’s remov al fr om the T ow Li st. This skept icismis j ustif ied b y dep ositi on testi mony in wh ich F enton stat ed th at Ca labre se ma de derog atory comm ents about Pist olesi beca use P istol esi “ was consi stent ly br eakin g the law with respe ct to the zonin g--or

. . . the towin g lis t.” Id. a t 143 3. B ecaus e Fen ton sugge sted that Calab rese’ s ani mus t owardPist olesi was drive n by facto rs ot her t han P istol esi’s prot ectedspee ch, the d istri ct co urt’s excl usion of F enton ’s te stimo ny di d not abuse disc retio n.

Since we f ind n o rev ersib le er ror a s to any o f the distr ict c ourt’ s evi denti ary r uling s, ap pella nts a re no t entit led t o a n ew tr ial o n the ir Fi rst Amendm ent c laim.

2. A ction appe als t he di stric t cou rt’s grant of
summa ry ju dgmen t on its E qual Prote ction Clau se cl aim. We “revi ew a
. . . gran t of summa ry ju dgmen t de novo, const ruing the evide nce i n the ligh t mos t fav orabl e to the
non-m oving part y anddraw ing a ll re asona ble i nfere nces in its f avor. ” Al lianz Ins. Co. v. Le rner, 416 F.3d 109, 113 (2d C ir. 2 005). We affir m a g rant of su mmary judg ment only if th ere i s no genui ne di spute as t o any mate rial fact, and the m oving part y is entit led t o jud gment as a matt er of law. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56(c ).

4Actio n pur sues a “cl ass o f one ” equ al pr otect ion c laim,

asser ting that the a ppell ees d iscri minat ed ag ainst it a nd impro perly remo ved i t fro m the Tow List. To set o ut a valid “clas s of one” claim , a p laint iff m ust “ alleg e[] t hat [ it] has b een i ntent ional ly tr eateddiff erent ly fr om ot hers simil arly situa ted a nd th at th ere i s no ratio nal b asis for the d iffer ence in tr eatme nt.” Rust on v. Town Bd. for Skane atele s, 61 0 F.3 d 55, 58 ( 2d Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Vi llage of Wi llowb rook v. Ol ech, 528 U .S. 5 62, 5 64 (2 000) (per curia m)). The plain tiff must demon strat e tha t “no rati onal perso n cou ld re gard the c ircum stanc es of the plain tiff to diffe r fro m tho se of a co mpara tor t o a d egree that woul d justi fy th e dif feren tial treat ment on th e bas is of a legit imate gove rnmen t pol icy.” Id. at 5 9-60 (quot ing Clubs ide, Inc. v. Va lenti n, 46 8 F.3 d 144 , 159 (2d Cir. 2006) ).

Actio n fai led t o ide ntify suff icien tly s imila r compa rator s. A fter Actio n’s r emova l fro m the Tow List, only Allto w andone other comp any r emain ed. That other comp any is th erefo re th e onl y com parat or up on wh ich A ction can base its c lass- of-on e cla im. But A ction is c o-own ed by Pisto lesi, who also owns anoth er co mpany on t he To w Lis t (Allt ow), where as th e own er of the other comp any d oes n ot
own m ultip le bu sines ses o n the list . A factf inder coul d concl ude t hat t he Vi llage remo ved A ction fromthe Tow L ist to av oid t he un fairn ess o f hav ing a comp any o wned by Pisto lesi being call ed in sequ ence to pe rforma to w twi ce as often as t he no n-Pis toles i-own ed co mpany . Co ntrar y to Actio n’s a ssert ions, it i s irr eleva nt wh ether a de sire for fairn ess w as th e actua l moti vatio n of the V illag e’s r emova l decis ion. Con seque ntly, Acti on ha s not iden tifie d a

2

In class -of-o ne cl aims, a pl ainti ff is requ ired to 2 ident ify c ompar ators that are “prim a fac ie id entic al” i n order to “ provi de an infe rence that the plain tiff was inten tiona lly s ingle d out for reaso ns th at so lack any
reaso nable nexu s wit h a l egiti mate gover nment al po licy that an im prope r pur pose
. . . is a ll bu t cer tain. ” Ne ilson v. D’Ang elis, 409 F.3d 100, 105 ( 2d Ci r. 20 05), overr uled on other grou nds b y App el v. Spir idon, 531 F.3d 138 ( 2d Ci r. 2008) . Si nce A ction fail ed to iden tify suffi cient ly si milar compa rator s, we cann ot sa y tha t it is “a ll bu t cer tain” that the V illag e’s d ecisi on to remo ve Ac tion was b ased on an impro per p urpos e.

5suffi cient ly si milar comp arato r to base its c lass- of-on e

claim

.
3. A ction appe als t he di stric t cou rt’s refus al (i n a separ ate o rder) to g rant an in junct ion o rderi ng th e Vil lage to re insta te it to t he To w Lis t, ev en th ough the d istri ct court had held preem pted a Tow List regu latio n tha t Act ion had c halle nged. The dist rict court just ifiedits refus al to grant an i njunc tion solel y on the g roundthat doin g so would const itute retr oacti ve re lief, in c onfli ct wi th Ex part e Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908 ), wh ich a llows only pros pecti ve injun ctive reli ef fo r con stitu tiona l vio latio ns. See Edelm an v. Jord an, 4 15 U. S. 65 1, 66 4 (19 74).

The r elief of r einst ating Acti on to the Tow L ist w ould be pr ospec tive, not retro activ e. S ee Dw yer v . Reg an, 7 77 F.2d 825, 836 ( 2d Ci r. 19 86) ( holdi ng re insta temen t to gover nment empl oymen t is prosp ectiv e rel ief). The refor e, we vacat e the dist rict court ’s or der r efusi ng to rein state Actio n to the T ow Li st, a nd re mand the c ase t o the dist rict court to r econs ider Actio n’s r eques t for an i njunc tion. We expre ss no opin ion o n the meri ts of Acti on’s reque st.

For t he fo regoi ng re asons , we hereb y AFFIR M IN PART, AND V ACATE AND REMAND IN PART , the judg ment of th e dis trict court

.
FOR T HE CO URT: CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK

6