Carifi v. Twp. of Parsippany-Troy Hills

JAMES CARIFI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS and PAUL PHILIPPS, Defendants-Respondents.

No. A-5230-18

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

August 23, 2021

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued April 12, 2021

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Morris County, Docket No. L-1681-18.

Christopher L. Deininger argued the cause for appellant.

Robert F. Renaud argued the cause for respondent Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills (Renaud Deappolonio, LLC, attorneys Robert F. Renaud, on the brief).

Thomas B. Hanrahan argued the cause for respondent Paul Philipps (Hanrahan Pack, LLC, attorneys; Thomas B. Hanrahan, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Messano, Hoffman, and Suter.

PER CURIAM

On August 26, 2018, plaintiff James Carifi, a former captain in the Parsippany-Troy Hills Police Department (the PD), filed this action (Carifi IV)^[1]against the Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills (the Township) and its former police chief, Paul Philipps. Plaintiff's complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c), regarding his employment and retirement.

The Law Division dismissed plaintiff's complaint, finding that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata, collateral estoppel, the entire controversy doctrine, and because of a release plaintiff signed as part of the settlement of Carifi II.

Philipps' attorney in this litigation, Thomas P. Hanrahan, represented the Township and other defendants in previous litigation between the parties. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Mr Hanrahan and his law firm on the ground that Mr. Hanrahan had a conflict of interest. The court denied the motion. Plaintiff sought to file supplemental pleadings four times but the court permitted only the first filing.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the motion court erred when it denied his motions to disqualify Mr. Hanrahan and to supplement his pleadings the second, third, and fourth times, and when it dismissed his complaint. We affirm, concluding the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint and denied his requests to file additional supplemental pleadings. Because we conclude the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint, we need not reach the disqualification issue.

I

A.

We assume familiarity with, and incorporate by reference, the underlying procedural history and background facts contained in our Carifi I and Carifi III opinions. We begin with a summary of the procedural history in the matter under review, Carifi IV, and then follow with a summary of the most salient facts relating to this appeal.

In September 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that included an extensive recitation of facts related to his employment, his retirement, and the three previous lawsuits among the parties. The amended complaint, eighty-six pages long, contained 352 numbered paragraphs.

The following month, defendants, represented by separate law firms, each filed answers to the amended complaint. On October 24, 2018, plaintiff moved to disqualify then-Chief Philipps' attorney, Mr. Hanrahan, and his law firm, Hanrahan Pack LLC (the law firm). Plaintiff argued that Mr. Hanrahan had a conflict of interest, since he represented the Township and other defendants in previous litigation involving the parties without obtaining informed consent from the adverse parties.

In November and December 2018, defendants each filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. On December 13, 2018, plaintiff cross-moved to file a supplemental pleading. On January 4, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the motion to disqualify Mr. Hanrahan. That same day, the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and permitted plaintiff to file his first supplemental pleading. On January 10, 2019, the court issued a written opinion denying plaintiff's motion to disqualify Mr. Hanrahan.

On January 23, 2019, plaintiff filed his first supplemental pleading, which included a new claim that the Township wrongfully denied a request he submitted pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 to -13. On January 29, 2019, defendants each filed new motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

On April 5, 2019, plaintiff moved to file a second supplemental pleading, seeking to add a claim that the Township had interfered with hearing officer Joseph Devine, who had ruled on disciplinary charges the Township brought against plaintiff in December 2014.

On May 19, 2019, plaintiff requested leave to file a third supplemental pleading, seeking to add a claim that the Township had violated his constitutional rights by withholding some of his accrued retirement benefits for unpaid sick leave, while paying those same benefits to other similarly situated retired officers.

On June 4, 2019, plaintiff sought leave to file a fourth supplemental pleading, seeking to add a claim that the Township violated his constitutional rights because, even though plaintiff retired in good standing, the Township nevertheless withheld some of his accrued retirement benefits but paid similar benefits to another officer, who did not retire in good standing.

On June 21, 2019, Judge Stephan Hansbury heard oral argument on plaintiff's motions to file supplemental pleadings and defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. In orders entered on June 27, and August 12, 2019, Judge Hansbury denied plaintiff's motions to file his second, third, and fourth supplemental pleadings, and dismissed plaintiff's complaint against then-Chief Philipps and the Township. This appeal followed.

B.

Plaintiff began working as a patrol officer for the PD in December 1992. He was promoted, eventually reaching the rank of captain.

In January 2009, plaintiff was transferred to the planning and research (P &R) section of the support services division. There, he supervised Sergeant Yvonne Christiano and Patrolman Earl Kinsey. In May 2009, Captain Edward Jasiecki became plaintiff's supervisor.

On September 2, 2009, Captain Jasiecki filed an Internal Affairs (IA) complaint (IA 0932) alleging that plaintiff was guilty of official misconduct because of a "road job" violation.^[2] The complaint alleged that plaintiff asked Sergeant Christiano and Patrolman Kinsey to falsify documents in connection with a road job so plaintiff could earn overtime pay.

The next day, September 3, 2009, plaintiff was transferred from his regular police duties to general undefined duties in the support services division. Meanwhile, then-Captain Philipps, ^[3] the division commander of IA, began an investigation into the allegations in IA 0932. Chief Michael Peckerman authorized Captain Philipps to refer the matter to the Morris County Prosecutor's Office (MCPO) to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against plaintiff for official misconduct. Captain Philipps delegated to Captain Andrew Miller to forward this information to MCPO. On January 19, 2010, Captain Philipps completed the investigation of IA 0932, culminating in a finding of "not sustained."

On September 8, 2009, plaintiff found documents on his desk pertaining to the PD's animal control section. The documents indicated that officers in the animal control section were "double dipping" and being paid twice for the same work. After plaintiff delivered a memo to Chief Peckerman and Captain Jasiecki about the animal control officers' salaries, Captain Miller began an IA investigation into the matter.

On September 11, 2009, the Township notified plaintiff that IA 0932 was being reviewed by MCPO to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. On October 5, 2009, MCPO notified the Township that there was no basis for criminal proceedings in IA 0932, but plaintiff was not informed of this development. On November 9, 2009, Captain Philipps notified plaintiff that his investigation was ongoing, but did not mention that MCPO found no basis for criminal proceedings. On January 5, 2010, Captain Philipps informed plaintiff for the first time that the investigation was administrative only, and not criminal.

At first, plaintiff denied the allegations in IA 0932, but later admitted that he had wanted to "bump off" the other officers so he could work the road job and earn overtime pay. Plaintiff believed Sergeant Christiano and Patrolman Kinsey were biased against him.

In the course of the IA 0932 investigation, plaintiff questioned why Captain Philipps had not enforced PD rules prohibiting Sergeant Christiano from wearing her hair in a ponytail and produced a picture of her hairstyle while on duty. Plaintiff also filed an IA complaint regarding Captain Philipps' and Captain Jasiecki's handling of the road job incident because they delayed investigating the matter; however, Chief Peckerman determined the complaint was unfounded.

Ultimately, Captain Philipps conceded that it took him only eight working days to complete the investigation of IA 0932. On January 19, 2010, Chief Peckerman determined that IA 0932 was not proven.

In the course of these events, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Captain Jasiecki improperly leaked to the media a confidential document that contained disparaging information about him. Captain Miller began an IA investigation of the matter and on January 5, 2010, the charges against Captain Jasiecki were sustained, with a resulting ten-day suspension without pay; however, plaintiff testified that Captain Jasiecki never served this suspension, ^[4] nor was he ever transferred before, during, or after the investigation. In addition, Captain Jasiecki remained plaintiff's supervisor even though plaintiff requested his...