Kim Vasquez v. Shameed Yadali, et al.

New York, New York civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued defendants on a 1983 civil rights violation theory.





Kim Vasquez brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with a traffic stop that took place on April 15, 2015. The Third Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, seeks relief for "false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, due process, malicious prosecution, illegal search, illegal seizure, unconstitutional conditions [of] confinement, drug test by needle, excessive bail, deliberate indifference to medical needs, failure to protect, denial of equal protection (handcuffed for several hours), [and] falsifying evidence.” These claims for relief were pressed against one or more of the following individuals: (1) New York State Trooper Shameed Yadali ("Yadali”); (2) New York State Trooper Joseph Merla ("Merla”); (3) New York State Police Sergeant Kevin Trombley ("Trombley”); and (4) unknown John Does ("Does”). (See id. at 2-3).



Yadali, Merla, and Trombley moved to dismiss the claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 1, 2019. (See Doc. 69; Doc. 70; Doc. 71; Doc. 72; Doc. 73). Judge Roman-before whom this matter proceeded prior to its transfer to this Court-granted that motion in part on March 5, 2020. (Doc. 75, "Prior Op.”).[2] Specifically, Judge Roman: (1) dismissed all claims against Yadali and Merla except false arrest; (2) dismissed all claims against Trombley; and (3) expressed no opinion on the viability of claims against the Does. (See generally id.). Discovery in this matter closed on December 6, 2021. (See Doc. 156; Doc. 158).



The Court held a telephonic Case Management Conference on December 8, 2021. (Doc. 158). Counsel for Yadali and Merla ("Defendants”) and Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeared. (Id.). The parties confirmed at that conference that discovery was complete and that they all intended to move for summary judgment. (Id.). Based upon the discussion held on the record, the Court construed a letter received from Plaintiff on October 25, 2021 as his motion for summary judgment. (Id.; see also Doc. 157 ("Pl. Br.”)). The Court directed that the remaining papers be filed as follows: (1) Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as well as their own motion for summary judgment, would be served and filed by January 14, 2022; (2) Plaintiff's reply in further support of his motion, as well as his opposition to Defendants' motion, would be served and filed by February 25, 2022; and (3) Defendants' reply in further support of their motion would be served and filed by March 11, 2022. (Doc. 158).[3]



Defendants filed their papers, in accordance with the above-outlined schedule, on January 14, 2022. (Doc. 159; Doc. 160, "Cha Decl.”; Doc. 161, "Merla Decl.”; Doc. 162, "Yadali Decl.”; Doc. 163; Doc. 164, "56.1 Stmt.”; Doc. 165). The Court received Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on January 31, 2022. (Doc. 166, "Pl. Opp.”). Approximately three weeks later, on February 18, 2022, the Court received from Plaintiff a notice of motion and memorandum of law in support of his motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 167; Doc. 168, "Pl. Supp.”).[4] The motions were briefed fully with the filing of Defendants' reply memorandum of law on March 10, 2022. (Doc. 170).

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.