Federal Magistrate Denies Plaintiff’s Application To Amend Complaint
Berkman Henoch successfully defeated an application seeking to amend its federal complaint based upon a claim of double jeopardy.
In September 2023, following a public hearing, the Town of Hempstead’s Town Board passed a resolution finding that the Capri Motel, located in West Hempstead, New York and owned by L&S Realty Co., LLC (“L&S”) constituted a public nuisance due to the large number of criminal incidents that had occurred at the motel. In order to abate the nuisance, the Town Board directed that the motel be boarded and shuttered for one (1) year. Following the closure of the motel, the Town, as authorized by the Town Code, commenced a separate action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Index No.: 615185/2023) seeking to have the motel shuttered and closed for an additional two (2) years (the “Civil Action”).
In a separate action commenced in the District Court of the Eastern District of New York, L&S argues that the Town Board, in declaring the motel a public nuisance, violated, among other things, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution (“Federal Action”). In the course of that litigation, L&S sought leave to file an amended complaint, which asserted a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. The proposed amendment was premised on the dismissal of several criminal summonses (that alleged the motel constituted a public nuisance) on speedy trial grounds (the “Criminal Action”). As a result of the Criminal Action’s dismissal, L&S argued that the Town could not pursue the Civil Action because both arise from the same factual predicate.
In adopting, virtually verbatim, Berkman Henoch’s opposition submitted on behalf of the Town of Hempstead, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke, denied L&S’s motion to amend.
In reaching his decision, Magistrate Locke noted that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, “only protects against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.” As explained by Berkman Henoch, when determining whether an additional sanction or penalty is criminal in nature, courts evaluate and consider several factors identified by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. United States.
After “[c]onsidering the Hudson factors together,” Magistrate Locke “conclude[d] that the [Civil Action is] not a criminal punishment for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. As a result, Plaintiff’s proposed Double Jeopardy claim fails as a matter of law . . . Accordingly, L&S’s proposed amendment is futile and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the Complaint is denied.”
The Town of Hempstead is represented by Joseph E. Macy, Esq. and Nicholas S. Tuffarelli, Esq. – members of Berkman Henoch’s Litigation Department, in both the Federal Action and the Civil Action.