U.S. District Court, WDNY
Subsequent Motion — Additional Discovery
Beechwood Restorativ, et al v. Leeds, et al
Background: The plaintiffs brought suit alleging the defendants had targeted the plaintiffs for closure of the plaintiff nursing home in retaliation for the plaintiff’s complaints and lawsuits in which the plaintiffs challenged a number of regulatory policies and practices of the defendants. The plaintiff’s claims had been dismissed on summary judgment. The Second Circuit, however, vacated the plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation complaint against the state defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the last claim despite the Second Circuit’s statement that the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of a retaliatory motive to survive summary judgment. The defendants argue that because additional discovery had occurred, the claim lacks merit.
Ruling: The court held that the defendants were not precluded from seeking a subsequent motion for summary judgment as the defendants were not seeking to re-argue matters previously raised. After examining the additional evidence presented by the parties, the court found that summary judgment was appropriate for a number of the defendants, but denied summary judgment for the remaining.
David Rothenberg of Geiger and Rothenberg LLP and Kevin S. Cooman, Paul Garett Barden and Peter J. Weishaar of McConville Considine Cooman & Morin PC for the plaintiffs; Gary M. Levine and Darren Longo of the New York State Office of the Attorney General for the defendant