Celestin v. W. Deptford Twp., Civil No. 15-7608 (NLH/KMW)

JEAN L. CELESTIN, J.C. #1 and J.C. #2, by and through their motherand guardian, JESSIE CLAIRVIL, Plaintiffs, v. WEST DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP, et al. Defendants.

Civil No. 15-7608 (NLH/KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 29, 2016

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

Robert Nathaniel Agre

4 Kings Highway East

Haddonfield, NJ 08033

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Deborah Beth Rosenthal

Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC

1318 Route 31

PO Box 4001

Clinton, NJ 08809-4001

Attorney for Defendants West Deptford Township, Corporal Steven C. Shirey, Patrolman James Greco, Sergeant Mark D. White, Police Chief Samuel DiSimone, and Patrolman Joseph LaMalfa

Matthew Christian Weng

Chance & McCann

201 West Commerce Street

Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Attorney for Defendant Gloucester County

David Andrew Tuason

State of New Jersey

Office of the Attorney General

25 Market Street

Trenton, NJ 08625

Attorney for Defendant Asst. Prosecutor Vincent Malfitano, Prosecutor Sean Dalton and Agent William Donovan

James Douglas Young

Steven J. Daroci

Fox Rothschild LLP

997 Lenox Drive

Building 3

Lawrenceville, NJ 08543-5231

Attorneys for Defendant Solvey Solexis, Inc., Russell Cundy, Joseph Auletto, and Charles Jones

Kurt E. Kramer

Capehart Scatchard

8000 Midlantic Drive

Suite 300S

Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Attorney for Defendant Thomas Marscholwitz

HILLMAN, District Judge

This case concerns an alleged accidental trespass into property owned by Solvay Specialty Polymers USA ("Solvay") in West Deptford, New Jersey. Plaintiff Jean Celestin alleges that on February 9, 2014, while driving his children to a birthday party, his GPS system rerouted him to Solvay's property, which is a restricted chemical plant. Celestin alleges he was arrested and charged with criminal trespass, and his two children were detained. Plaintiffs bring constitutional claims against five groups of Defendants: (1) Gloucester County [Doc. No. 34]; (2) Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean Dalton, formerGloucester County Assistant Prosecutor Vincent Malfitano, Gloucester County Agent William Donovan (collectively, "the prosecutor Defendants") [Doc. No. 35]; (3) Solvay, and Solvay employees, Joseph Auletto, Russell Cundy and Charles Jones (collectively, the "Solvay Defendants") [Doc. No. 36]; (4) Solvay security guard Thomas Marschlowitz [Doc. No. 43]; and (5) Police Chief Samuel DiSimone, Patrolman James Greco, Patrolman Joseph LaMalfa, Corporal Steven C. Shirey, Sergeant Mark D. White and West Deptford Township (the "West Deptford Defendants").

I. JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides in relevant part, "[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution."

II. STANDARDS OF LAW

A. Motion to Dismiss

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be grantedpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 351 (3d Cir. 2005). It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it contains "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Under the liberal federal pleading rules, it is not necessary to plead evidence, and it is not necessary to plead all the facts that serve as a basis for the claim. Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 562 F.2d 434, 446 (3d Cir. 1977). However, "[a]lthough the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set forth an intricately detailed description of the asserted basis for relief, they do require that the pleadings give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Baldwin Cnty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 n.3 (1984) (quotation and citation omitted).

A district court, in weighing a motion to dismiss, asks "'not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim.'" Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 n.8 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ("Our decision inTwombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all civil actions' . . . ."); Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) ("Iqbal . . . provides the final nail-in-the-coffin for the 'no set of facts' standard that applied to federal complaints before Twombly.").

Following the Twombly/Iqbal standard, the Third Circuit has provided a three-part analysis in reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). First, the Court must take note of the elements needed for plaintiff to state a claim. Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). Second, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated; a district court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id.; Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950). Third, a district court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. Id. A complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210; see also Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating that the "Supreme Court's Twombly formulation of the pleading standard can be summed up thus: 'stating . . . a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' the required element. This 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleadingstage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of' the necessary element.").

A court need not credit either "bald assertions" or "legal conclusions" in a complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss. In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997). The defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been presented. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)). Finally, a court in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must only consider the facts alleged in the pleadings, the documents attached thereto as exhibits, and matters of judicial notice. S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999). A court may consider, however, "an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993).

B. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where the Court is satisfied that "'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with theaffidavits, if any,' . . . demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact" and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).

An issue is "genuine" if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is "material" if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. "In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party's evidence 'is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.'" Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 ("[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absenceof a genuine issue of material fact."); see also Singletary v. Pa. Dept. of Corr., 266 F.3d 186, 192 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001) ("Although the initial burden is on the summary judgment movant to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, 'the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' -- that is, pointing out to the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case' when the nonmoving party bears the ultimate burden of proof.") (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).

Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must identify, by affidavits or otherwise, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A "party opposing summary judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the . . . pleading[s.]'" Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001). For "the non-moving party[ ] to prevail, [that party] must 'make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Cooper v. Sniezek, 418 F. App'x 56, 58 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322...