DECISION & ORDERI. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 asserting that Defendants violated her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiff responds with a cross-motion seeking partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing its “Rules for Speaking under Privilege of the Floor.” Dkt. No. 13. Defendants oppose the cross-motion. Dkt. No. 15. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion in granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff’s motions are denied.II. BACKGROUNDa. ProceduralPlaintiff commenced this action on October 18, 2018 asserting that Defendants retaliated against her because she spoke out about matters of public concern at County legislative meetings, used threats and intimidation to prevent her from speaking about matters of public concern at public meetings, and the individual defendants conspired with each other to censure her and retaliate against her because of her public speech. See generally Compl. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages “arising from the application of the published policy (Policy) of the Tompkins County Legislature (Legislature) against Cipolla-Dennis, as embodied in ‘Rules for Speaking under Privilege of the Floor.’” Id., at 1. After the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, directed Plaintiff”s counsel to either file proof of service of the summonses or a status report on or before January 4, 2019, see 12/27/18 Text Order, Dkt. No. 4, Plaintiff filed a certificate of service on January 2, 2019. Dkt. No. 5. In lieu of an Answer, Defendants moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the action. Dkt. No. 6. The Court then granted Plaintiff’s request to adjourn the return date of the motion to afford an extension of time in which to respond. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 11, 12. In response to the motion, Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from enforcing its Rules for Speaking under Privilege of the Floor. Dkt. No. 13. Defendants opposed the cross-motion by arguing that the motion for summary judgment is premature, and that Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted thereby closing this case. Dkt. No. 15. These motions are now before the Court.b. FactualFor the purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the following factual allegations taken from the Complaint are assumed to be true. See Fahs Constr. Group, Inc. v. Gray, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7822, at *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2011). From 2014 until May 18, 2017, Plaintiff was a regular attendee at, and participant in, public meetings of the Tompkins County Legislature of Representatives (“Legislature”). Compl.
12, 27. These public meetings are usually held after regular business hours on public grounds and are open to all residents and employees of Tompkins County (“County”). Id. 29.On January 13, 2014, during a meeting of the County Public Safety Committee, Cipolla-Dennis began speaking about a civil lawsuit brought against the City of Ithaca based upon the conduct of a former Ithaca City Police Officer, Stephen Moracco. Id. 32. The reason for addressing the County Public Safety Committee about Moracco was because, at the time, Moracco was a Tompkins County Deputy Sheriff. Id. Plaintiff stated that Moracco had previously been involved in a lawsuit in which a gay female alleged that Moracco wrongfully arrested her and “assaulted [her] in his patrol vehicle with erratic and dangerous driving as he transported her to the Ithaca City Police Station.” Id. During Plaintiff’s statement, the Chair of the County Public Safety Committee, non-defendant Brian Roberson, directed Plaintiff to stop speaking when two women entered the room. Id.
