Defendant George Scarpelli was the head coach of the Somerville High School boys’
varsity soccer team He is just as bad as the anti-mask woman Kerry Laidlaw These creeps claim they help the children but they put the children in SERIOUS DANGER OF HARM
HERE IS SOME HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST GEORGE SCARPELLI FROM COURT DOCUMENTS.
6
That night, all of the soccer players and coaches gathered at a bonfire. Id. ¶ 130. Still, no one had told the coaches anything about the incident. See id. ¶ 129. At the bonfire, Scarpelli asked each freshman to say what the camp had meant to him. Id. ¶ 130. When M.L.’s turn came, he said, “Pain, a lot of pain.” Id. Gual interjected, asking whether it was “good pain or bad pain.” Id. M.L. said, “Bad.” Id. Gual replied, “It must have been good because you asked for it three
times.” Id. Some students laughed, and an awkward pause followed. Id. Scarpelli moved on to the next player. Id.
Throughout the rest of the camp, M.L. did not report the incident because he was
embarrassed and afraid he would get into trouble. Id. ¶ 131. Gual, however, bragged about the
“prank” to other players. Id. ¶ 132. Galileo checked
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GALILEO MONDOL, ALISON HINES, and
MARK MONDOL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF SOMERVILLE, JOSEPH
CURTATONE, ANTHONY PIERANTOZZI,
and GEORGE SCARPELLI,
Defendants.
GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BURROUGHS, D.J.
Plaintiffs Galileo Mondol and his parents, Alison Hines and Mark Mondol, allege that
Defendants, all associated with Somerville High School, conspired to violate the constitutional
rights of Galileo Mondol, a high school soccer player who faced charges, later dropped, in
connection with a sexual assault at a sports camp in 2013. Plaintiffs also bring various state law
claims. Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims, and also seek reimbursement for costs
and attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and the motion for fees is DENIED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
At summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor but disregarding any
“conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.” McGrath v.
Tavares, 757 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the summary of material facts that
Mondol et al v. City of Somerville et al Doc. 117
Dockets.Justia.com
|2
Defendants’ facts (“Pl. Facts”) [ECF No. 106] that indicate the lack of a genuine dispute.1
Additional facts are reserved for later discussion.
A. The Parties
In August 2013, when the events at issue took place, Plaintiff Galileo Mondol was 17
years old and lived with his family, including his parents, Plaintiffs Alison Hines and Mark
Mondol, in Somerville, Massachusetts. Pl. Facts ¶ 76. At the time, Galileo, an avid soccer player,
had just transferred to Somerville High School as a junior and hoped to play on the Somerville
High School soccer team. Id.
Defendant George Scarpelli was the head coach of the Somerville High School boys’
varsity soccer team. Id. ¶ 81. Defendant Anthony Pierantozzi was the superintendent of
Somerville Public Schools. Id. ¶ 80. Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone is also named as a
defendant, in his role as an assistant coach for the Somerville High School boys’ football team,
as is the City of Somerville, a municipal corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Id.
¶¶ 78–79.
B. Team-Building Camp
Somerville High School regularly conducted annual team-building camps for student-
athletes in late August. Id. ¶ 82. From 2011 to 2013, Scarpelli and Curtatone were the principal
organizers of the camps, which took place at Camp Lenox in Otis, Massachusetts. Id. ¶¶ 1, 82–
1 Because the ensuing sections focus on only those facts that are material to Plaintiffs’ claims
against the named Defendants, certain details from Plaintiffs’ extensive statement of facts are
dealt with summarily or not referenced herein. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are
irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”).
0 comments:
Post a Comment