Engel Reimondo

7/29/2019 Engel Reimondo

1/12

f-


2/12

,....;IN~o~o

acted to remove police ChiefMatthew Reimondo (herein after "Reimondo"). This was based in parupon the concerns of the Town ofEast Hampton, which were raised by the Plaintiff at numeroustimes both to East Hampton citizens on an individual basis and at public meetings and hearing atwhich she addressed town members.

3. The East Hampton town council voted six to one (the Plaintiffs vote being in themajority) approving the termination ofpolice ChiefMatthew Reimondo and provision of severance.Subsequently, police ChiefMatthew Reimondo, in retaliation for the Plaintiffs conduct onadvocating his removal from the position ofChiefofPolice for the Town of East Hampton, began acampaign ofharassment and intimidation against Ms. Engle. This campaign ofharassment andintimidation began by Reimondo directly and by Sergeant Garrett Kelly (herein after "Kelly") of theEast Hampton Police Department under direction ofReimondo.

4. The Defendant 's conduct included, but was not limited to the following::a. lntentionally refusing to provide protection to the property of the Plaintiffon or

about August 2010. This was contrary to the request of the Plaintiff that specific individualsnot be allowed to enter her property, Kelly, under the direction ofReimando, did intentionallescort trespassers into the property of the Plaintiff.

b. On or about November 2010, Kelly, under the direction and supervision ofReimando and whose duty it was to maintain order and maintain a police presence at town

2

Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 12


3/12

council meetings, knowingly and willfully refused to follow the direction oftown councilmembers including that of the Plaintiff. In addition, Kelly refused to address the disruptiveconduct of the individuals in attendance whose conduct intentionally disrupted the actionsand speech of the Plaintiff.5. Reimando and Kelly, under the supervision and direction ofReimando, initiated an

investigation and prosecution ofMs. Engle based upon her properly providing absentee ballots toEast Hampton's citizens in order that they may participate in a referendum election to re-instateReimando as Chiefof Police for the Town ofEast Hampton. Said investigation and prosecution wabaseless, without probably cause and intended to intimidate and harass Ms. Engle because ofheradvocacy and protected speech.JURISDICTION

6. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code Sections 1983 and 1988.Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343,2201 and 2202, and theabove described constitutional and statutory provisions. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over thState and common law counts set forth herein.VENUE

7. This action properly lies in the District ofConnecticut pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section1391 (b) and 1391(c).

3



4/12

~~ i l lu.:/Eo-


5/12

ouilijS

~u::Nrn~1.0~

~

such agencies with its knowledge and consent.11. The Defendant, Town ofEast Hampton, is a Connecticut Municipality which, has a

various times relevant to the conduct described herein, has maintained a police department inaccordance with its authority as a municipality, for the purpose of engaging in law enforcementwithin the Town ofEast Hampton.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to Defendants Reimando & Kelly - Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983)

1. Paragraphs one through eleven are incorporated as if fully set out here.12. Defendants Reimando and Kelly were, at all times mentioned herein expect those

specifically listed, were employed by and duly appointed and acting police officers of the town ofEast Hampton. By their conduct, Defendants knowingly and intentionally did harass and intimidatethe Plaintiff based upon her advocacy of dissolving the Town ofEast Hampton Police Departmentand as a result, terminating the employment of the Defendants by the Town ofEast Hampton.

13. The result of the above-described actions on the part of the Defendants, the Plaintiff hasuffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm for which she has no adequate remedy of law.Foregoing actions on the part of the Defendant were intentional in that the Defendants acted with anintent to injure the Plaintiff or with a reckless regard for her rights.

5



6/12

14. The actual harassment, intimidation and malicious prosecution by the Defendants againsthe Plaintiff was in violation of the Plaintiff's right to free expression and assembly under the lawhas caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff irreparable harm due to actual and threateneddeprivation ofher constitutional rights.

15. Defendants Reimando and Kelley have deprived Plaintiffs of their First Amendmentrights in violation of42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by virtue of their personal involvement in the aforesaidactions and because Reimando supervised and/or directed all of the Kelley in connection with theactions described above.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to Defendant Town of East Hampton Violation of 42U.S.C. 1983)

1. Paragraphs one through fifteen of the First Cause ofAction are incorporated as if fully se

out here.16. Defendant Town of East Hampton is liable for the a b o v e ~ d e s c r i b e d violation of

Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights in violation of42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in one or more of thefollowing ways:

a. These actions were taken pursuant to official policy of the Defendant Town ofEastHampton;

b. These actions were the result conduct in accordance with the policy and customs of the

6



7/12

Defendant town of East Hampton;c. These action were taken as a failure to train by the Defendant Town ofEast Hampton.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to All Defendants - Malicious Prosecution of the Plaintiff1. Paragraphs one through fifteen of the First Cause of Action are incorporated as if fully s

out here.16. The Plaintiffs actions did not violate any laws or ordinances of the State ofConnecticut

or Town of East Hampton.17. The Defendant Reimando, falsely and maliciously and without probable cause,

provocation or warrant, ordered the investigation and prosecution of the Plaintiff on a purportedcharge of failure to comply with the Connecticut Election Laws.

18. Following the initiation of the investigation and initiated prosecution, under the directioofReimando, the Plaintiff was compelled to retain an attorney and expend sums ofmoney on herbehalf.

19. The actions of the Defendants were the result ofmalice, personal il l will and recklessdisregard of the Plaintiff s right to liberty.

20. The actions of the Defendants in unlawfully and maliciously causing the prosecution,constitute a violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that the Defendants wereacting under color oflaw, deprived Plaintiffofher rights which are guaranteed by the Fourth and

7



8/12

Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.21. As a direct and approximate result of the malicious, wrongful, precedential, and unlawfu

acts herein above alleged, the Plaintiff suffered great mental and physical stress and has beendamaged in good name, reputation, and credit and has been subject to public humiliation,embarrassment and shame to her damage.

THE PENDANT CLAIMSFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Violation ofthe Constitution of theState of Connecticut)

1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Second Cause ofAction are by reference herebincorporated into this the Fourth cause ofAction.

22. The actions of the Defendants violated the Plaint iff s rights as secured by the Constitutioof the State of Connecticut.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress - of Plaintiff Engle)

1. Paragraphs one through twenty-on of the Third Cause of Action are by reference herebyincorporated into this the Fifth Cause of Action.

22. The defendants intended to inflict severe emotional distress, or in the alternative, knew oshould have known that their actions would inflict severe emotional distress.

8



9/12

23. The conduct of the defendants was extreme and outrageous.24. The plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.25. The defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs distress.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distres- of Plaintiff Engle)1. Paragraphs one through twenty-on of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby

incorporated into this the Sixth Cause of Action.22. The defendants-recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress upon the plaintiff.23. The conduct of the defendants was extreme and outrageous.24. The plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.25. The defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' distress.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Connecticut Common Law,Malicious Prosecution)1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby

incorporated into this the Seventh Cause of Action.22. The Defendants commenced and continued criminal and civil proceedings against the

Plaintiff without probable cause for such proceeding and with malice.23. As a result ofthe aforementioned conduct, the Plaintiff has continued to suffered

9



10/12

damages.24. The conduct of the Defendant was a direct and approximate cause ofthe Plaintiff's

damages.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants- Abuse ofProcess)

1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause ofAction are by reference herebyincorporated into this the Eighth Cause ofAction.

22. The Defendants did initiate criminal and civil process against the Defendants for thepurpose of retaliation against the Plaintiff for her conduct of and speech in advocating the dissolutioof the Town ofEast Hampton Police Department. As a result, they caused harm to the Plaintiff.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to Defendant Reimando - Negligent Supervision)

1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause ofAction are by reference herebyincorporated into this the Ninth Cause ofAction.

22. The Defendant Reimando, did direct and supervise Kelley to initiate and continuecriminal and civil process against the Plaintiff without probable cause and with malice and retaliatio

10



11/12

to the Plaintiff's conduct and expression.The Defendant Reimando knew, or should have known thorough the exercise of ordinary

care, that Kelley's conduct would subject the Plaintiff to unreasonable risk of harm. As a result ofnegligent supervision of Reimando and the conduct ofKelley, the Plaintiff was directly harmed,intimidated, harassed and damaged in good name and credit and was the subject ofpublicembarrassment and shame.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to all Defendants - Trespass)1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause ofAction are by reference hereby

incorporated into this the Tenth Cause of Action.22. The intentional entrance by Kelley onto the property of the Plaintiff, without justificatio

or permission, or active permission had been withdrawn, constituted a civil trespass against thePlaintiff.

23. Said trespass by Kelley, under the direction ofReimando, was done with malice orreckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and as retaliation against the conduct and protectedspeech of the Plaintiff.

24. As a result of the aforementioned conduct ofthe Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffereddamages.

11



12/12

oC()N

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim:a. That the conduct of the Defendant 's violated the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution.c. Judgment against each of the Defendants, Jointly and Severally;d. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs;e. Compensatory damages;f. Punitive Damagesg. Such other, further relief as to this court may seem just and equitable; and

PLAINTIFF

E er ar. F0 bo & Associates, LLC280 Adams StreetManchester, CT 06040Tel: (860)645-0006Fax: (860)645-1110Email: [email protected]

12

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

Engel Reimondo