Falat v. Cnty. of Hunterdon, Civil Case No. 12-6804 (FSH) (MAH)

JOHN FALAT, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF HUNTERDON, et al., Defendants.

Civil Case No. 12-6804 (FSH) (MAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 20, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSED

OPINION

HOCHBERG, District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court upon motions to dismiss by Defendants Edmund DeFilippis,¹ Kenneth Rowe (Docket No. 63) and Defendants the County of Hunterdon, Matthew Holt, George Melick, William Mennen, Erik Peterson, Ronald Sworen, Robert Walton, and Cynthia Yard (Docket No. 64). The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and considers the motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

I. BACKGROUND OF THE INSTANT MOTION

Plaintiffs are Deborah Trout and Michael Russo, the former Sheriff and Undersheriff of Hunterdon County, as well as John Falat, Jr., a former employee of the Hunterdon County Sheriff's Office. They allege that Defendants—various local public officials—retaliated againstPlaintiffs Trout and Russo for bringing civil lawsuits against the County. Defendants contend that the alleged retaliation, if it happened at all, occurred between 2008 and 2010, which would be untimely based on a two-year statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs initially filed a twenty-count Complaint against sixteen named individuals and entities on August 2, 2012 in New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County. Defendants removed the action to this Court on October 24, 2012. After motions to dismiss were filed by a number of Defendants, Hon. Stanley Chesler, U.S.D.J., dismissed several of the causes of action with prejudice and several without prejudice, allowing Plaintiffs to replead certain claims against some of the Defendants. Judge Chesler's Opinion and Order were clear directions to Plaintiff to rely on "specific factual allegations to support each of [their] claims," "articulating precisely which claims each Plaintiff is making against whom" rather than asserting "impermissibly vague group pleading." Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against the twelve remaining Defendants. Defendants again moved to dismiss.² Following reassignment of the case to the undersigned, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to state each "[s]pecific cause of action for violation of the Constitution under § 1983 or § 1985" and to "state individually by each Defendant named in each Count that alleges a federal constitutional rights violation, the paragraph number of the Amended Complaint that sets forth the asserted factual grounds for each claim."

(a) Plaintiffs' Lawsuits and Alleged Retaliation

Between 2008 and 2010, Plaintiff Trout was the Sheriff of Hunterdon County, Plaintiff Russo was an Undersheriff and Plaintiff Falat was an investigator for the Sheriff's Office. A decade before Plaintiffs took office, Undersheriff Russo and Sheriff Trout brought civil lawsuits against the County. Specifically, in 1998, Plaintiff Trout—then a Sheriff's officer—sued the Hunterdon County Freeholders based on purported violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJ LAD") and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA"). (Am. Compl. ¶ 20). Similarly, in 1995 Plaintiff Michael Russo filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Freeholders and the Hunterdon County Sheriff's Office. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18). Plaintiffs have not pled the facts underlying these actions with any particularity. Both actions settled. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21).

In 2007, Plaintiff Trout announced her candidacy for the Office of the Sheriff of Hunterdon County. (Am. Compl. ¶ 22). She won the election, serving as Sheriff between 2008 and 2010. (Am. Compl. ¶ 40). From the beginning of her campaign until she left office, Plaintiffs Trout and Russo allege that Defendants wrongfully discriminated against them in retaliation for their earlier lawsuits, and retaliated against Trout's subordinates for assisting in her campaign. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24).

The Amended Complaint includes a list of different purported acts of retaliation by different public officials, as follows: Plaintiffs claim that Defendant County Counsel DeSapio and the Freeholder Defendants demanded that Plaintiff remove pictures of herself in County insignia from her political website in 2007, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 26); they claim Defendant Freeholder Melick allegedly stated, "I can't believe the bitch won," and "[t]he bitch sued us and we're not going to make it easy for her," after Plaintiff Trout's 2007 election victory, (Am.Compl. ¶ 29); they claim Defendant DeSapio allegedly instructed Plaintiff Trout not to hire Plaintiff Russo as Undersheriff, stating he "was a 'problem' [because Russo] had previously sued the county," and Defendant Freeholder Melick allegedly demanded that Plaintiff Trout "get rid of [Russo] immediately . . . [because] he sued the County and you need to get rid of him," (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32, 38); Plaintiffs claim that the Freeholder Defendants allegedly reviewed Plaintiff Trout's proposed appointments to subordinate positions in the Sheriff's Office, "demanded resumes, organizational charts and job descriptions . . . demands [that] were never made of any prior newly elected Hunterdon County Sheriff," and "refused to pass a resolution acknowledging" Plaintiff Trout's selection of subordinates or approving back pay for them, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 34, 39, 50, 52, 55); they complain that all Defendants purportedly "refused to permit access [sic] the Sheriff's Trust Fund," "interfered with the hiring of office employees," refused to allow Plaintiff "to relocate [her office] to the newly renovated Historic Courthouse," and refused to renew annual contracts, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 131-135); Plaintiffs claim that Defendant County Administrator Yard allegedly "limit[ed] [Plaintiff Trout's] . . . number of unclassified appointments she could make within her budget" and ordered that no public department could "perform work for the Sheriff's Department without Yard's consent," (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47, 133); they claim that the Freeholder Defendants purportedly passed resolutions that "systematically discriminate[d] and retaliate[d] against Plaintiff by cutting her budget in amounts disproportionate to other County budgets" in 2008 and 2009, (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57, 101); and they claim that "[D]efendant Melick filed an ethics charge against Plaintiff Trout with the New Jersey ELEC concerning an alleged campaign impropriety," (Am. Compl. ¶ 88).

(b) Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office Investigation

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' actions culminated in the Prosecutor's Office investigating and arresting Plaintiffs. The Amended Complaint alleges that unnamed Defendants "began corresponding with the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office seeking to involve them in an investigation" of Plaintiffs for "non-compliance with the County's hiring policies." (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44, 46) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 2008, the Prosecutor's Office sent a letter to Plaintiffs seeking copies of all hiring policies and documentation "to ensure that the manner in which candidates for [Sheriff's Office] were hired comports with sound law enforcement practices." (Am. Compl. ¶ 59). Plaintiff Trout claims that she then received a grand jury subpoena in 2008 to supply "[a]ll employment application and forms, resumes, letters of reference, background investigation reports . . . Arrest Reports, Investigation Reports" and other documentation for specific new hires. (Am. Comp. ¶ 64). Additionally, unnamed Defendants purportedly "disclosed . . . confidential Grand Jury information and/or confidential investigations" to the press, resulting in newspaper articles about an investigation of Plaintiff Trout. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 71, 74, 75).

On July 29, 2008, Plaintiff Falat claims he was stopped by Defendants Detectives Rowe and DeFilippis, searched, and arrested for "false swearing . . . on his employment application," at which time Defendants purportedly "tried to entice Falat into providing them with information concerning Plaintiffs Trout and Russo." (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 76, 81, 84). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants provided an e-mail to the prosecutor's office which an unspecified person obtained "illegally and improperly" by breaking into "Russo's e-mail account." (Am. Compl. ¶ 84). On December 22, 2008, the Prosecutor's Office executed search warrants on the Hunterdon County Sheriff's Office and Plaintiff Falat's residence, and frisked Plaintiffs Trout, Russo andFalat. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 92, 93). In March 2010, a grand jury indicted Plaintiffs on a total of 43 criminal counts, (Am. Compl. ¶ 187), and on May 7, 2010 the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office unsealed the indictments of Plaintiffs Trout, Russo and Falat, (Am. Compl. ¶ 109), at which time Plaintiffs were arrested, (Am. Compl. ¶ 187). After the arrests, the Freeholder Defendants allegedly passed resolutions requesting that Plaintiffs take a leave of absence and authorizing an audit to verify Sheriff's Office financial accounts. (Am. Compl. ¶ 111). In August 2010, the New Jersey Attorney General's Office assumed control of the criminal case against Plaintiffs from the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office, reviewed the indictments, and dismissed the indictments against Plaintiffs without prejudice on August 23, 2010. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 117, 118, 122).

(c) Alleged Retaliation After Dismissal of the Indictments

After the indictments were dismissed, Plaintiffs allege three instances of purported retaliation, set forth below:

• "On August 12, 2010 . . . Defendant George Melick sent a letter on Hunterdon County letterhead to [the Governor] and copies of said letter to numerous other individuals questioning as to why the case had been moved from the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's Office to the Attorney General's Office. . . [Melick] indicated that in his 32 years of service on the Board of Chosen Freeholders, he had served with six (6) different Sheriffs, 'all of which had conducted themselves, to a certain of [sic] degree, in a manner that

...