MATOS et al v. LAIELLI et al, No. 1:2015cv08140 - Document 33 (D.N.J. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 10/26/2016. (TH, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MATOS et al v. LAIELLI et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW J ERSEY VICTORIA MATOS and BRUCE BULLOCK, v. Hon. J oseph H. Rodriguez : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 15-cv-8140 : OPINION : LAUREN LAIELLI, CHRISTOPHER : DODSON, VICTOR E. GUADALUPE, PAULO PEREIRA, HARRY R. ALBERT, : FRANK X. BALLES, ATLANTIC COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND : ATLANTIC COUNTY, : Defendants. This m atter is before the Court on m otion of Defendants Lauren Laielli, Christopher Dodson, Victor E. Guadalupe, Paulo Pereira, Harry R. Albert, and Frank X. Balles for partial dism issal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court has reviewed the subm issions of the parties and decides this m atter without oral argument in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons stated here, the m otion will be granted in part and denied in part. Backgro u n d Plaintiffs, Victoria Matos and Bruce Bullock, were employed by the New J ersey Departm ent of Children and Fam ilies as Family Service Dockets.Justia.com Specialists. Plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully arrested and prosecuted in connection with their November 6, 20 14 work assignm ent of escorting a juvenile to a court hearing in the Atlantic County Courthouse. Plaintiffs allege that upon entering the courthouse, the juvenile was confronted by a sheriff’s officer, but ignored a direction from one of the officers and proceeded to enter the elevator with Bullock. At that point, m ultiple sheriff’s deputies entered the elevator, restrained, and allegedly assaulted the juvenile. Bullock witnessed the assault, but allegedly did not interfere in any way. (Com pl., ¶¶16-20 .) As Matos approached the elevator, she was pushed out of the way by one of the sheriff’s officers. (Com pl., ¶22.) After the juvenile was taken into custody by the sheriffs, Matos com plained about the way she was treated and the way the juvenile had been treated. (Com pl., ¶23.) When Bullock left the courthouse to go to his vehicle and retrieve paperwork, he was followed by several of the individual defendants and he used his phone to record their actions. This resulted in the sheriffs placing him in handcuffs and bringing him into the courthouse in their custody. (Com pl., ¶¶25-26.) Defendant Albert allegedly told Bullock that he would be released and no further action would be taken if he deleted the video that he had taken. (Com pl., ¶28.) After the Defendants learned that Plaintiffs intended to file an internal affairs complaint against them, Plaintiffs allege that they collectively decided to file crim inal charges against the Plaintiffs, knowing that there was no basis for those charges. (Com pl., ¶¶30 -32.) Plaintiffs were fired from their jobs based on the false allegations of the Defendants. The charges against them proceeded to trial in the Atlantic City Municipal Court, where they were acquitted of all charges. (Com pl., ¶¶37-39.) Although he was not involved in the original encounter with Plaintiffs, Defendant Balles is alleged to have ratified and endorsed the arrest and prosecution of the Plaintiffs for the purpose of protecting the sheriff’s officers from civil liability and other consequences of their m isconduct. (Compl., ¶61.) Further, Balles allegedly m ade it clear to the Plaintiffs’ crim inal attorneys that his office was prosecuting the Plaintiffs to protect the Atlantic County Sheriff’s Office from criticism and civil liability, and that all charges could be dropped in exchange for an agreement protecting the sheriff and his officers. (Com pl., ¶36.) Ju ris d ictio n Plaintiffs have brought their claim s pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as New J ersey state law. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claim s under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplem ental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim s under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Stan d ard o n Mo tio n fo r Ju d gm e n t o n th e Ple ad in gs Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that a party m ay m ove for judgm ent on the pleadings. The movant under Rule 12(c) m ust show clearly that no m aterial issue of fact exists and that it is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. Rosenau v. Uniford Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 20 0 8) (citing J ablonski v. Pan Am . World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290 91 (3d Cir. 1988)). A m otion under Rule 12(c) is reviewed under the same standard as a m otion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Turbe v. Governm ent of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a court m ay dism iss a com plaint “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In order to survive a m otion to dism iss, a complaint m ust allege facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twom bly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (20 0 7); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a court m ust accept as true all allegations in the plaintiff's com plaint, and view them in the light m ost favorable to the plaintiff, Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 20 0 8), a court is not required to accept sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, unwarranted inferences, or unsupported conclusions. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 90 2, 90 6 (3d Cir. 1997). The com plaint m ust state sufficient facts to show that the legal allegations are not sim ply possible, but plausible. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20 0 9). D is cu s s io n Defendants have argued that all claim s against Sheriff Balles should be dism issed because the Com plaint fails to allege sufficient facts to suggest that Sheriff Balles had personal involvem ent in, or knowledge of, an alleged constitutional violation; nor does the Com plaint set forth any facts regarding an illegal policy of custom which Sheriff Balles allegedly created that resulted in a constitutional deprivation. The Court disagrees. The Com plaint alleges that Defendant Balles m ade it clear to the Plaintiffs’ crim inal defense attorneys that all charges could be dropped in exchange for an agreement protecting the sheriff and his officers. (Compl., ¶36.) It also alleges that Balles was aware that the charges were false and, despite this awareness, conspired with Defendants to pursue the charges in order to protect his office and his em ployees against claim s of civil liability for their m isconduct. (Com pl., ¶¶41, 42.) The Com plaint alleges that Balles ratified and endorsed the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiffs for the purpose of protecting the sheriff’s officers from civil liability and other consequences of their m isconduct. (Com pl., ¶¶52 and 61.) Finally, Plaintiffs’ Com plaint alleges that the false arrest and m alicious prosecution would not have occurred without the official endorsem ent of Defendant Balles. (Compl., ¶67.) The Court finds these allegations sufficient for claim s against Balles in his individual capacity to survive the instant m otion. 1 Sim ilarly, the Court finds that conspiracy has been sufficiently pled. To state a claim for civil conspiracy in New J ersey, a Plaintiff m ust allege: a com bination of two or m ore persons acting in concert to com m it an unlawful act, or to com m it a lawful act by unlawful m eans, the principal elem ent of which is an agreem ent between the parties to inflict a wrong or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in dam age. 1 Insofar as any claim s have been asserted against Balles in his official capacity, they are dism issed as duplicative of the claim s against the County. See Baez v. Lancaster County, 487 Fed. Appx. 30 , 32 (3d Cir. 20 12) (“The claim against Warden Gaurini in his official capacity is duplicative of the suit against the County. As a result, sum m ary judgment was properly granted in favor of the County and Warden Guarini in his official capacity.”); Kean v. Henry, 523 Fed. Appx. 879, 882 (3d Cir. 20 13). Banco Popular North Am erica v. Gandi, 184 N.J . 161, 177, 876 A.2d 253 (20 0 5). Thus, to state a claim for civil conspiracy, plaintiffs m ust allege that a defendant (1) entered into an agreement with at least one other person, (2) for the purpose of comm itting an unlawful act, and (3) one of the conspirators then took at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement, and (4) plaintiff suffered som e dam age as a result. The Com plaint alleges that after they learned the Plaintiff Matos was considering filing an Internal Affairs com plaint against them , Defendants Dodson, Laielli, Guadalupe and Pereira “conferred and decided to file crim inal charges against the Plaintiffs. Their plan was approved by Defendant Albert.” (Com pl., ¶32.) In addition, Plaintiffs’ Com plaint alleges that all of the individual defendants including Sheriff Balles “conspired to falsely create probable cause through fabricated statements to bring about crim inal charges against Ms. Matos and Mr. Bullock.” (Com pl., ¶1.) Further, it is alleged that Defendants participated in the fabrication of probable cause “in the hopes of protecting themselves against claim s of civil liability for their m isconduct in the handling of the incident . . . on November 4, 20 14 at the Atlantic County Courthouse.” (Com pl., ¶42.) Accordingly, the Court finds that civil conspiracy has been pled adequately. However, it appears that Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim, as well their com m on law defam ation claim , 2 m ust be dism issed for failure to com ply with the notice requirements of the New J ersey Tort Claim s Act. See County Concrete Corp. v. Township of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159, 174-75 (3d Cir. 20 0 6) (holding that the NJ TCA notice requirements apply to a civil conspiracy claim ). The NJ TCA sets forth the procedures a claim ant m ust follow before bringing a tort claim against the state, or, as is relevant here, a “local public entity.” N.J . Stat. Ann. § 59:1– 1 et seq. The statute defines a “local public entity” as “a public entity other than the State.” § 59:8– 2. The claim m ust include seven items: (1) name and address of the claim ant, (2) the address to which the notice will be sent, (3) the “date, place and other circum stances of the occurrence or transaction” giving rise to the claim , (4) a description of the injury, damage or loss incurred, (5) the name or names of the public entity, em ployee or employees causing the injury, (6) the 2 In New J ersey, an action for defam ation requires the plaintiff to establish: “(1) the assertion of a false and defam atory statem ent concerning another; (2) the unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; and (3) fault am ounting to at least negligence by the publisher.” DeAngelis v. Hill, 180 N.J . 1, 12-13 (20 0 4). Because defam ation is a tort claim , a plaintiff m ust com ply with the notice requirements under the NJ TCA. See Brown v. City of Essex County New J ersey, No. 10 -3980 , 20 10 WL 5139880 , *3 (D.N.J . Dec. 9, 20 10 ). am ount of dam ages claim ed, and (7) the signature of the claim ant. §§ 59:8 – 4, 59:8– 5. A claim for injury or dam ages against a local public entity “shall be filed with that entity” within 90 days after the accrual of the cause of action. §§ 59:8– 7, 59:8– 8. A claim “m ay be presented to a local entity by delivering it or m ailing it certified m ail to the entity” and the claim “shall be deemed to have been presented in com pliance with this section . . . if it is actually received at . . . [a] local public entity within the tim e prescribed . . . .” § 59:8– 10 (a)– (b). “[C]onstructive service” of the public entity can be achieved by serving the required notice “upon any em ployee of that entity.” § 59:8– 10 (c). Although the statute sets a 90 – day tim e lim it to file the claim , a claim ant m ay file the notice within two years, with perm ission of the court and if late notice will not prejudice the defendant, upon a showing of “extraordinary circum stances for [her] failure to file notice of claim ” within the 90 – day period. § 59:8– 9. Here, Plaintiffs have neither pled nor shown com pliance with the notice requirements of the NJ TCA. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim s of defam ation and civil conspiracy m ust be dism issed. See Velez v. City of J ersey City, 850 A.2d 1238, 1246 (N.J . 20 0 4). Co n clu s io n For these reasons, the Defendants’ m otion will be granted in part and denied in part. An appropriate Order will be entered. Dated: October 26, 20 16 / s/ J oseph H. Rodriguez J OSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ U.S.D.J .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
