In January 2011 Sgt. Larry Phillips of the Methuen Police Department filed a federal civil rights complaint against a number of his supervisors and co-workers in the department and against the City, his employer.  He claimed that the individual superior officers deprived him of his procedural due process rights when he was placed on suspension in August 2007 and again when he was removed as supervisor of the department’s ATV Unit in January 2011.  He also asserted that these same superior officers conspired together to deprive him of these rights and that they also failed to supervise adequately.  He included various state law claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and state civil rights deprivations identical to his federal civil rights claims in his complaint as well.

We represented four of the superior officers in the lawsuit.  We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and because some of the claims were time-barred.  The plaintiff opposed our motion and those similar motions of the other defendants.  We requested the authority to file reply memorandum, which the court granted.  This memorandum addressed issues raised by the plaintiff in his opposition, particularly his reliance on a continuing violation theory to try to avoid the statute of limitations bar and his assertion that Massachusetts Civil Service law provided the requisite entitlement to his supervisory position with the ATV Unit.  Ultimately, his arguments on these points failed.

After hearing, the court agreed with our arguments against the vitality of the lawsuit, and it granted all of the motions, dismissing Sgt. Phillips’ federal claims and refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.  It dismissed those, too, but without prejudice to the plaintiff bringing those in state court.  The case is Phillips v. City of Methuen, et als., Civil Action No. 11-10171-JLT.

RJA does what other attorneys could not do and obtains the dismissal of a lawsuit against two Lowell police supervisors

For any who believe that experience in representing police officers does not matter, and any licensed attorney can handle the job, a recent case involving RJA demonstrates the flaw in that thinking.  In this case, a plaintiff sued various persons and entities, including two police supervisors, for physical injuries that he claimed to have suffered after a beating.  City attorneys, who never met with the police supervisors to discuss the case, filed a motion to dismiss without the knowledge of the supervisors.  That motion was opposed by the plaintiff, who also amended his complaint in order to cure any problems with the allegations.  By that point, RJA had become involved on behalf of the officers and served a motion to dismiss the “fixed” complaint.  Whereas the motion to dismiss filed by other counsel was greeted with an opposition, the motion to dismiss crafted by RJA was met with an agreement from plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss all claims against both supervisors without the need even to involve the Court in hearing the motion.   Experience in handling the complexities of civil lawsuits against police officers matters and at times can make the difference between being a party to a case for years or being dismissed as a party shortly after a case is filed.

RESULT:  By stipulation agreed to by plaintiff’s counsel, all claims against both police supervisors were dismissed.

COURT:  Suffolk Superior Court

RJA Counsel:  Michael J. Akerson and Andrew J. Gambaccini

In a fierce battle waged over a prolonged period, RJA represented the Chief of Police of Methuen Massachusetts who was terminated by his appointing authority, the Mayor, after the political winds began to blow against the Chief and the Mayor seized the opportunity to score points leading up to a re-election bid.  After the Mayor fired the Chief at the local level, the matter was appealed to the Civil Service Commission, with a Commissioner assigned to the case who thereafter presided over almost two dozen days of hearings.  By the end of the proceeding, the Commissioner had received almost two hundred lengthy exhibits, had heard from twenty-six witnesses and had received proposed decisions from the parties that were hundreds of pages in length.

RESULT: In a 125 page decision available here, a unanimous Civil Service Commission concluded that the appointing authority’s personal animus and political ambitions had taken control of his decision-making, violating the basic merit principles of civil service law to the detriment of the Chief of Police.  The decision also found that the appointing authority had overreacted to politically-charged events, failed to seek the truth dispassionately and piled on charges of no substantial merit.  As a consequence, the Chief was ordered to be returned to his position as Chief of Police with a significant back pay award.

Following receipt of the Commission decision, the City appealed to Superior Court, where the City also filed a motion seeking to block the Chief’s impending return to work.  The City’s request to block the return was opposed by the attorneys at RJA and, after briefing and a hearing, a Superior Court judge rejected the City’s attempt to stop the Chief’s return, finding specifically that the City’s appeal did not have a reasonable likelihood of success.  Although the City continues to press its appeal, the Chief has returned to work and the attorneys at RJA continue to litigate the matter to ultimate closure.

RJA Counsel: Attorney Andrew J. Gambaccini and Attorney John K. Vigliotti

As some may know, generally a police officer’s challenge to discipline is not brought to arbitration by the officer, but only can be brought to arbitration by an officer’s union.  There also are times when, for various reasons, an officer does not wish to be represented by union counsel.  In a recent case handled by RJA, an officer wished to have RJA handle his challenge to his termination at arbitration and the officer’s union agreed to the request.    The case involved allegations that the officer committed a larceny by overcharging a citizen for a license to carry permit, lied to Massachusetts State Police investigators during an interview into missing license to carry money, improperly sought overtime compensation on two occasions and had allowed his driver’s license to lapse.

RESULT: An arbitrator soundly rejected each of the claims brought against the officer, concluding that the Town had violated the collective bargaining agreement that provided just cause protections for the officer.  Further, the arbitrator ordered that the Town immediately offer the officer to return to his position, along with an award of the back pay and benefits that he lost as a result of his wrongful termination.  The Town has appealed that arbitration award to Superior Court, where RJA continues to defend the officer vigorously.

RJA Counsel: Attorney Andrew J. Gambaccini

False arrest and excessive force claims against Revere police officer rejected based upon the work of RJA

            An individual claiming that he was arrested improperly and punched while handcuffed brought a federal civil rights claim based upon those allegations.  In a rare feat, the attorneys at RJA convinced a federal judge to dismiss the excessive force claim of the plaintiff based solely upon the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s own complaint.  Knowing that the plaintiff’s claims had been weakened severely, the plaintiff’s deposition was taken quickly and a motion for summary judgment then was filed on behalf of the officer.

RESULT:  Judgment entered in favor of the officer when the federal judge agreed that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff had not demonstrated that his claims against the officer were viable and should be considered by a jury.

COURT:  Federal District Court in Boston

RJA Counsel:  Attorney Andrew J. Gambaccini

RJA prevails in Springfield police shooting case

An individual who had attempted to elude police officers who were pursuing him was shot by an officer when he failed to comply with the verbal commands of the officers and raised an object that the officers reasonably believed was a gun.  In a federal lawsuit filed after the shooting, the plaintiff alleged that several members of the police department involved in the incident were responsible for violating his civil rights.

            RESULT:  A federal judge rejected the plaintiff’s claims against the supervisory officers represented by the attorneys at RJA, concluding that the legal analysis set out in the RJA memorandum  supporting dismissal was correct and that the supervisors should have judgment entered in their favor.

COURT:  Federal District Court in Springfield

RJA Counsel:  Attorney Austin M. Joyce and Attorney Andrew J. Gambaccini

RJA successfully represents Worcester police officer in lengthy civil rights case

          Two individuals who were arrested by police officers in a large city brought a civil rights action against a number of officers, alleging false arrest and excessive force.  One of the officers sued was represented by RJA.  After a procedurally tortured history in federal court, a federal judge dismissed the action on procedural grounds.  The plaintiffs appealed that decision and the First Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to conduct discovery before their claims were dismissed.  After discovery, renewed motions to dismiss were filed and the federal court again agreed with the officers and dismissed the actions.

Relying on a state statute that authorizes the filing of a new lawsuit in certain situations, the plaintiffs filed a second action in federal court.  After discovery, RJA was able to convince the plaintiffs’ attorney, based upon the facts and the law, to dismiss the officer represented by RJA from the case.  As to the claims against the officers not represented by RJA, the case proceeded to trial and resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs.

RESULT:  An agreed upon dismissal of the officer represented by RJA.

COURTS:  Federal District Court in Worcester and the First Circuit Court of Appeals

RJA Counsel:  Andrew J. Gambaccini