Wright v. Bassett Healthcare Network et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER. The second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1) is accepted as the operative pleading in this action; the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1) separ ately as the Second Amended Complaint; the motion by defendants Bassett Healthcare Network and Mike Treem to dismiss the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 21 , is GRANTED and all claims against them are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to reple ad; the motion by defendants United States Government, Internal Revenue Service and United States of America for a more definite statement, Dkt. No. 40 , is DENIED. The United States defendants are directed to serve and file an answer within 14 days of the date of this MDO. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 10/27/2014. {Plaintiffs served by certified RR). (lah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

LAURI WRIGHT and THOMAS WRIGHT,
Plaintiffs,
-v-

3:13-CV-211 (NAM/DEP)

BASSETT HEALTHCARE NETWORK, MIKE TREEN,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
N

Defendants.
ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

APPEARANCES:
Lauri Wright and Thomas Wright
P.O. Box 32
South New Berlin, New York 13843
Plaintiffs, pro se
A

Nixon Peabody LLP
Andrew C. Rose, Esq., of counsel
Kacey E. Houston, Esq., of counsel
677 Broadway, 10th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Attorney for Defendants Bassett Healthcare Network and Mike Treen

M

United States Department of Justice - Tax Division
Stephanie Chernoff, Esq., of counsel
P.O. Box 55
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Attorney for United States Defendants

Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court are (1) a motion (Dkt. No. 21) by defendants Bassett
Healthcare Network and Mike Treen (“Bassett defendants”) to dismiss the amended complaint

(Dkt. No. 17); and (2) a motion (Dkt. No. 40) by defendants United States Government, Internal
Revenue Service, and the United States of America (“United States”) for a more definite
statement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). In a previous decision herein (Dkt. No. 14), this Court gave
Lauri Wright, the sole plaintiff in the initial complaint, leave to file an amended complaint. Lauri
Wright and Thomas Wright filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17), and, apparently in
response to the pending motions, a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1). The
N

Court accepts the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1) as the operative
pleading. As set forth below, the Court deems the Bassett defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 21) to
dismiss the amended complaint to be directed towards the second amended complaint, and grants
the motion with prejudice and without leave to replead. The Court denies the United States’
motion (Dkt. No. 40) for a more definite statement, and directs the United States to serve and file

A

an answer within 14 days.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Court accepts the second amended complaint as the operative pleading in the action.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44,
attachment 1) separately as the Second Amended Complaint.

M

MOTION BY BASSETT DEFENDANTS
To survive a dismissal motion, “a complaint must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.
2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plaintiff “must
provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.’” ATSI Commc'n, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87,

-2-

98 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court must accept as true all factual
allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See ATSI,
493 F.3d at 98. “A complaint should be especially liberally construed when it is submitted pro se
and alleges civil rights violations.” Jacobs v. Mostow, 271 Fed.Appx. 85, 87 (2d Cir. 2008). The
submissions of a pro se litigant should be interpreted “to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations
N

omitted). A court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without granting leave to amend at least
once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Where, however, the problem
with a pro se plaintiff’s claim is substantive, and repleading would be futile, leave to replead
should be denied. Id.

A

With respect to plaintiffs’ claims against Bassett Healthcare Network, Lauri Wright’s
employer, and Mike Treen, manager of Bassett Healthcare Network’s accounting department, the
amended complaint and the second amended complaint are indistinguishable. Therefore, the
Court deems the Bassett defendants’ dismissal motion to be directed to the second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs’ claims against the Bassett defendants stem from their compliance with an
IRS notice of levy. As the Court noted in its previous Memorandum-Decision and Order herein

M

(Dkt. No. 14), an employer’s compliance with the obligation to honor an IRS levy extinguishes its
liability to the claimant of the property. See 26 U.S.C. § 6332(e); Schiff v. Simon & Schuster,
Inc., 780 F.2d 210, 212 (2d Cir. 1985). It is clear from plaintiffs’ opposition papers (Dkt. No.
24), amended pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 17, 44), and other submissions that plaintiffs’ claims against
the Bassett defendants are based solely on plaintiffs’ challenges to the validity of the underlying

-3-

tax assessments and fees and to the United States’ authority to issue the IRS notice of levy to
plaintiff Lauri Wright’s employer. Therefore, the Bassett defendants’ compliance with their
obligation to honor the levy extinguishes their liability to plaintiffs as a matter of law.
Construing plaintiffs’ claims most liberally, interpreting them to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest, and taking all of plaintiffs’ submissions into account, the Court
concludes that plaintiffs have no cognizable claim against the Bassett defendants. The problem
N

with these claims is substantive; better pleading will not cure them. Therefore, granting plaintiffs
another opportunity to amend would be futile. The Court grants the motion (Dkt. No. 21) by the
Bassett defendants and dismisses the second amended complaint against them with prejudice and
without leave to replead.
MOTION BY UNITED STATES

A

The United States moves (Dkt. No. 40) for an order directing plaintiffs to provide a more
definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Rule 12(e) provides: “A party may move for a
more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” The United States
argues that the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17) does not contain a short and plain statement of
claims showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and that the allegations in the complaint are

M

not simple, concise, or direct. The United States specifies paragraphs which lack dates, are
vague, or lack allegations that can be admitted or denied.
In response to the United States’ motion, plaintiffs file a Memorandum of Law, with two
attachments: the second amended complaint and an affirmation from Lauri Wright (Dkt. No. 44).
Lauri Wright’s affirmation states that the second amended complaint “is to correct the statements

-4-

the U.S. District Attorney found confusing.” The second amended complaint repeats everything
set forth in the amended complaint and adds a few details, such as that the complaint “covers
‘Taxable years’ 2001-2013”; that “[e]ventually Plaintiffs received numerous Assessment Notices
from the IRS seeking a filing for a ‘1040’ or ‘1040A’ tax for unfiled ‘taxable years’”; that Lauri
Wright “just received a letter stating that her overpayment for ‘Taxable Year’ 2003 was being
applied to her taxes owed for 2006”; and that “all assessment documents have been legal[ly]
N

deficient [for] failing to contain all the necessary documents.” Because the two pleadings are
practically identical, the Court treats the United States’ motion for a more definite statement as
directed towards the second amended complaint.
The Court recognizes that plaintiffs’ second amended complaint lacks concise details and
dates. Nevertheless, it is not so vague or ambiguous that the United States cannot reasonably

A

prepare an answer. An order directing these pro se plaintiffs to prepare yet another complaint
will cause delay and, in view of plaintiff’s submissions up to this point, is unlikely to prompt
plaintiffs to condense and simplify their allegations. Therefore, the motion is denied. The United
States is directed to serve and file an answer to the second amended complaint within 14 days of
the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order.

M

CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that the second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1) is accepted as
the operative pleading in the action; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the second amended
complaint (Dkt. No. 44, attachment 1) separately as the Second Amended Complaint; and it is

-5-

further
ORDERED that the motion (Dkt. No. 21) by defendants Bassett Healthcare Network and
Mike Treen to dismiss the amended complaint against them, deemed to be a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, is granted, and all claims against them are dismissed with prejudice
and without leave to replead; and it is further
ORDERED that the motion (Dkt. No. 40) by defendants United States Government,
N

Internal Revenue Service, and United States of America for a more definite statement is denied;
and it is further
ORDERED that defendants United States Government, Internal Revenue Service, and
United States of America are directed to serve and file an answer within 14 days of the date of
this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and it is further

A

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this MemorandumDecision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York, and
to serve plaintiffs Lauri Wright and Thomas Wright by certified mail, return receipt requested
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 27, 2014
Syracuse, New York

M

-6-