MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs Thomas A. Datre Sr. (“Mr. Datre”), Clara Datre (“Mrs. Datre” and, together with Mr. Datre, the “Datres”), and Daytree at Cortland Square, Inc. (“Daytree” and, collectively, “plaintiffs”) bring this action against defendants Michael P. Walsh, Edward Walsh,1 Michael Torres, Robert L. Cicale, and Anthony S. Senft, Jr.; councilmembers of the Town of Islip (the “Town”) Steven J. Flotteron, John C. Cochrane, Jr., and Trish Bergin Weichbrodt (“councilmember defendants”) in their official capacities; and the Town (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, alleging violations of their Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs bring claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as defamation (libel), stigma-plus, breach of contract, and Section 1983 conspiracy.In particular, plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired and carried out a plan to cause local authorities and the public to wrongly believe plaintiffs were responsible for dumping toxic materials in the Roberto Clemente Park (the “Park”), a public park in the Town. Plaintiffs allege that, as part of the conspiracy, defendant Michael Walsh used his position as Deputy Town Attorney to proclaim that the Town had completed an investigation and determined that plaintiff Daytree was responsible for the toxic dumping — a statement that defendants allegedly knew to be false. Specifically, plaintiffs assert that there was no investigation by the Town, nor was there a finding that Daytree was responsible. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that defendants shared this false information with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (“DA’s Office”) and the media, leading to widespread dissemination via social media. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ defamatory statements were motivated by a desire to deflect blame for the environmental scandal onto plaintiffs for defendants’ own political gain.As a result of defendants’ allegedly false statement that plaintiffs were responsible for the toxic dumping, plaintiffs claim that they have suffered extreme injuries, including Mr. Datre’s removal from a paid position with the Town, the raid and seizure of plaintiffs’ contracting business as a result of the DA’s Office investigation, the filing of multiple civil lawsuits against plaintiffs by third parties, and plaintiffs’ vilification in the community, which has prevented them from resuming business operations, among other harms. Plaintiffs allege loss of their personal and professional reputations in addition to business and monetary harms. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged violations of their civil rights, as well as a declaratory judgment that they are not a responsible party for any alleged dumping in the Park.Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.2 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for declaratory relief, grants the motion to dismiss the claims against the individual councilmember defendants, and denies the motion to dismiss in all other respects. In particular, plaintiffs have alleged a plausible claim for defamation (libel) and, although defendants argue that the statements are subject to the litigation privilege because they were made in a notice letter to insurance carriers, the issue of privilege cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in this case (especially in light of the allegations of bad faith and malice). Plaintiffs have also sufficiently alleged a plausible stigma-plus claim under Section 1983 in alleging that these false and defamatory statements were made, inter alia, to terminate Daytree’s treeremoval contract with the Town without any process. The Section 1983 conspiracy and municipal liability claims also contain sufficient allegations to survive a motion to dismiss. Similarly, plaintiffs have stated a plausible breach of contract claim under New York state law in connection with the Town’s alleged failure to pay plaintiffs under the treeremoval contract. However, the declaratory judgment and injunctive relief claims fail as a matter of law in this particular case, and the claims against the individual councilmember defendants must be dismissed as duplicative of the municipal liability claim.I. BACKGROUNDA. Factual Background1. The Allegations of Toxic DumpingThe Court takes the following facts from plaintiffs’ complaint and the exhibits attached thereto.3Starting in or around August 2013, the Town’s Parks Department supervised the creation of soccer fields inside the Park, which involved contractors delivering fill materials to the Park. (Compl.
102-03.) Defendant Senft, who served as the Town Board’s liaison to the Parks Department (the “Parks Liaison”) at the time, was among those individuals at the Parks Department supervising this project (the “Park project”).4 (Id. 103.) According to the complaint, in September 2013, one or more persons complained that materials were being transported into the Park without permits, and/or that “objectionable” materials had been dumped there. (Id. 110.) In particular, it is alleged that “tons” of “toxic materials” were illegally dumped at the Park.5 (Id. 2.) As discussed further infra, plaintiffs allege that defendants wrongly blamed them for the dumping, and deny “hav[ing] ever ‘dumped’ so much as one grain of dirt…or anything else, whatsoever, in the park,” or having “transported anything to the park…period.” (Id.
