J.O. v. NANCI ARRAIAL

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                        NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-2727-15T2

J.O.,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NANCI ARRAIAL, individually and in
her official capacity; CRAIG F.
MEYER, individually and in his
official capacity; RICHARD J. GUSS,
individually and in his official
capacity; DARYL A. WILLIAMS,
individually and in his official
capacity; HECTOR I. RODRIGUEZ,
individually and in his official
capacity; E. RONALD WRIGHT, J.M.C.,
individually and in his official
capacity; THE TOWNSHIP OF
BEDMINSTER; THE TOWNSHIP OF
FRANKLIN (Somerset Co.); THE
COUNTY OF SOMERSET; THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY; and AMY H. WOLLOCK,
individually,

     Defendants-Respondents.
____________________________________

              Argued February 27, 2018 – Decided March 14, 2018

              Before Judges Fisher, Fasciale and Moynihan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No.
              L-1494-14.
          Joseph Oettinger, Jr., argued the cause for
          appellant.

          Richard A. Grodeck argued the cause for
          respondents Nanci Arraial, Craig F. Meyer,
          Richard J. Guss, and Township of Bedminster
          (Piro, Zinna, Cifelli, Paris & Genitempo, LLC,
          attorneys; Richard A. Grodeck, of counsel and
          on the brief).

          Ashley L. Costello, Deputy Attorney General,
          argued the cause for respondents Daryl A.
          Williams and the State of New Jersey (Gurbir
          S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Lisa
          A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of
          counsel; Ashley L. Costello, on the brief).

          Louis N. Rainone argued the cause for
          respondents Hector I. Rodriguez, E. Ronald
          Wright, J.M.C., and Township of Franklin
          (Rainone Coughlin Minchello, attorneys; John
          A. Stone, on the brief).

          Jennifer A. Cottell, Deputy County Counsel,
          argued the cause for respondent County of
          Somerset (William T. Cooper, III, County
          Counsel, attorney; Jennifer A. Cottell, on the
          brief).

          Jordan B. Kaplan argued the cause for
          respondent Amy H. Wollock (Fox Rothschild,
          LLP, attorneys; Matthew S. Adams and Jordan
          B. Kaplan, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     Plaintiff appeals from orders dismissing the complaint as to

some defendants for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 4:6-

2(e) and granting summary judgment as to other defendants.        We

affirm.

     Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against defendants and raised

                                2                          A-2727-15T2
multiple causes of action.   The procedural history preceding the

filing of this appeal is protracted. For our purposes, the parties

filed dispositive motions, which more than one judge adjudicated.

Those judges then issued the orders under review.   In dismissing

the complaint for failure to state a claim as to some defendants

and granting summary judgment as to other defendants, the judges

made legal conclusions after rendering comprehensive oral and

written opinions.

     On appeal, plaintiff argues:

          POINT I
          [THE JUDGE] ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE PLAINTIFF
          THE BENEFIT OF EVERY FAVORABLE INFERENCE THAT
          CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
          COMPLAINT CONCERNING DEFENDANTS' [Rule] 4:6-
          2(e) MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

          POINT II
          [THE JUDGE] ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S
          CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY
          DOCTRINE.

          POINT III
          [THE JUDGE] ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
          CROSS-MOTIONS   TO   STRIKE   THE   BEDMINSTER
          DEFENDANTS' AND DEFENDANT WOLLOCK'S MOTIONS TO
          DISMISS.

          A. [The Judge] erred in denying plaintiff's
          cross-motion   to   strike    the   Bedminster
          Defendants' [Rule] 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss.

          B. [The Judge] erred in denying plaintiff's
          cross-motion to strike defendant Wollock's
          [Rule] 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss.



                                3                          A-2727-15T2
POINT IV
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE [NEW JERSEY TORT CLAIMS ACT
(NJTCA)] NEGLIGENCE MONETARY DAMAGE AND
EQUITABLE RELIEF CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN
BE GRANTED IN THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD
COUNTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ARRAIAL, MEYER,
WILLIAMS AND GUSS.

A. Plaintiff has stated NJTCA negligence
monetary damage claims on which relief can be
granted.

1. Defendants Arraial, Meyer, Williams and
Guss do not enjoy immunity under N.J.S.[A.]
59:3-3.

2. Defendants Arraial, Meyer, Williams and
Guss do not enjoy immunity under N.J.S.[A.]
59:3-5.

3. Defendants Arraial, Meyer, Williams and
Guss do not enjoy immunity under N.J.S.[A.]
59:3-2.

B. Plaintiff has stated negligence equitable
relief claims on which relief can be granted.

POINT V
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE NJTCA RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
MONETARY DAMAGE AND EQUITABLE RELIEF CLAIMS
UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE FIFTH,
SEVENTH AND EIGHTH COUNTS AGAINST THE TOWNSHIP
OF BEDMINSTER, COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE
OF NEW JERSEY.

POINT VI
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED         TO         STATE          NJTCA
INTENTIONAL/RECKLESS/OUTRAGEOUS/WILLFUL/MALI
-CIOUS MONETARY DAMAGE AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE
NINTH, TENTH AND ELEVENTH COUNTS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS ARRAIAL, MEYER, WILLIAMS AND GUSS.

                      4                          A-2727-15T2
POINT VII
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE [NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
(NJCRA)] MONETARY DAMAGE CLAIMS UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE FIFTEENTH COUNT
AGAINST DEFENDANT WILLIAMS.

A. Plaintiff stated NJCRA monetary damage
claims upon which relief can be granted
against defendant Williams as an employee of
the County of Somerset.

B. In the alternative, plaintiff stated NJCRA
monetary damage claims upon which relief can
be granted against defendant Williams should
Williams be deemed an employee of the State
of New Jersey.

C. Defendant Williams does not enjoy absolute
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims, based on the timing of his role
as advocate.

D. Defendant Williams does not enjoy absolute
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims, based on the nature of the
function performed.

E. Defendant Williams does not enjoy qualified
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims concerning delay in returning
seized property and derivatives.

POINT VIII
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE NJCRA INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR
MONETARY DAMAGE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN
BE GRANTED IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH
COUNTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS ARRAIAL, MEYER AND
GUSS.

A. Defendants Arraial, Meyer and Guss do not
enjoy   immunity   from   plaintiff's  NJCRA
injunctive relief claims.


                      5                          A-2727-15T2
B. Defendant Guss does not enjoy absolute
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims, based on the timing of his role
as advocate.

C. Defendant Guss does not enjoy absolute
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims, based on the nature of the
function performed.

D. Defendant Guss does not enjoy qualified
immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA monetary
damage claims concerning delay in returning
seized property and derivatives.

E. Defendants Arraial and Meyer do not enjoy
qualified immunity from plaintiff's NJCRA
monetary damage claims concerning delay in
returning seized property and derivatives, and
damaging, tampering with, and converting,
seized property while in custody.

POINT IX
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
PURPORTED MARCH 27, 2012 SOMERSET COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S NOTICE TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS AND
ELECTRONIC DATA EXCUSED THE OBSTRUCTION BY
DEFENDANT GUSS OF [A DIFFERENT JUDGE'S] ORDERS
TO    RETURN    PLAINTIFF'S    PROPERTY    AND
DERIVATIVES.

POINT X
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONETARY
DAMAGE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE EIGHTEENTH COUNT
AGAINST DEFENDANT ARRAIAL.

POINT XI
[THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO STATE A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR MONETARY
DAMAGE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE NINETEENTH COUNT
AGAINST DEFENDANT TOWNSHIP OF BEDMINSTER.


                      6                          A-2727-15T2
         POINT XII
         [THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
         FAILED TO STATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MONETARY
         DAMAGE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS UPON WHICH
         RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE TWENTIETH COUNT
         AGAINST DEFENDANT WOLLOCK.

         POINT XIII
         [THE JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF
         FAILED TO STATE A MONETARY DAMAGE FRAUD TORT
         CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE
         NINETEENTH COUNT AGAINST DEFENDANT WOLLOCK.

         POINT XIV
         [A DIFFERENT JUDGE] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
         PLAINTIFF FAILED TO STATE NJTCA RESPONDEAT
         SUPERIOR MONETARY DAMAGE CLAIMS UPON WHICH
         RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IN THE SEVENTH COUNT
         AGAINST THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET.

         POINT XV
         [A DIFFERENT JUDGE] ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
         FRANKLIN DEFENDANTS BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S
         FAILURE TO FILE AN ACTION IN LIEU OF
         PREROGATIVE WRITS.

    After considering the record, oral argument, and the briefs,

we conclude that plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.         R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).   We affirm substantially for the thoughtful reasons

expressed by the motion judges.

    Affirmed.




                                  7                        A-2727-15T2