Fernandez v. Borough of Roseland

EDDIE FERNANDEZ and MICHAEL BELLANTONI, Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF ROSELAND, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00103 (ES) (CLW)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

September 2, 2021

OPINION

Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.

I. Introduction

This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Plaintiffs Eddie Fernandez (“Fernandez”) and Michael Bellantoni (“Bellantoni”) seeking to amend their complaint [ECF No. 40]. Plaintiffs more specifically seek leave to (i) join a new plaintiff, Martin Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), to the claims previously asserted by Fernandez and Bellantoni; (ii) assert a New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) race discrimination claim on behalf of Gutierrez; and (iii) assert a Monell claim. Each defendant - the Borough of Roseland (“Roseland”); Roseland Police Department (“RPD”) Chief of Police Richard McDonough (“McDonough”); and RPD Captain William Mildon (“Mildon”) (collectively “Defendants”) - has separately opposed the motion, and Plaintiffs have filed a reply. ECF No 45-48.^[1] The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

II. Background

Fernandez and Bellantoni filed this action in January 2020. ECF No. 1. Fernandez, Bellantoni, and Gutierrez's (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) proposed amended complaint (the “PAC”) alleges as follows.^[2]

Plaintiffs are employed by the Roseland Police Department (the “RPD”). Fernandez is a Hispanic American and has worked for the RPD since 2003; he is currently a sergeant. Bellantoni has been with the RPD since 2005 and is currently a patrol officer. Gutierrez is a Hispanic American and has worked for the RPD since 2008; he is currently a patrol officer. All three officers' work records and professional reputations are “excellent”; nonetheless, they have been passed over for promotions on numerous occasions, including in 2018 and 2020. PAC at ¶¶ 2-4, 76.

Roseland is a municipality that controls the RPD's daily operations. McDonough, who is Caucasian, has been the Chief of the RPD for approximately nineteen years. Mildon, also Caucasian, is a Captain with the RPD, head of the RPD's Internal Affairs division, and “a submissive follower” of McDonough. McDonough, with Mildon's assistance, “treats the Department as his own personal playground and ‘manages' the Department through the use of fear and intimidation, favoritism for those who obey his every whim, and continuous harassment and hostile employment actions against those who disagree or question the propriety of his own mismanagement and corrupt and unlawful practices, or those whom he simply does not like, irrespective of their performance as law enforcement professionals.” Both McDonough and Mildon are alleged to be policymakers with respect to police affairs in Roseland. Id. at ¶¶ 5-8; 12.

Defendants are alleged to have engaged in a years-long “systemic and continuous course of harassing and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiffs”. Id. at ¶ 14. This grows in large part from Defendants' use of an officer evaluation system that, among other things, unlawfully relies upon ticket quotas;^[3] discriminates against officers who use contractual accrued leave time; and targets residents from minority racial groups by directing officers to give tickets, rather than warnings, in areas where more minority individuals drive. McDonough refers to this system as the “Wheel of Death.” Id. at ¶¶ 50-65.^[4] Plaintiffs allege that, due to their objecting to these and similar policies, they have fallen “out of grace” with McDonough, resulting in their being retaliated and discriminated against by Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 69-70. Notable examples include:

• McDonough publicly scolding, humiliating, docking pay from and retaliating against Bellantoni for missing work (despite Bellantoni securing coverage per RPD protocol) by filing disciplinary charges and threatening Bellantoni to concede to the charges or be fired; id. at ¶¶ 33-47;

• McDonough causing Mildon or others to file baseless complaints against Plaintiffs; id. at ¶ 71-74;

• Failures to promote Plaintiffs in 2018 and 2020 despite Plaintiffs' qualifications-this includes less qualified Caucasian officers being promoted over Fernandez at McDonough's urging; id. at ¶¶ 75-80;

• McDonough retaliating against Bellantoni and Fernandez in connection with medical issues, resulting in, inter alia,

Bellantoni and Fernandez being passed over for promotions and missing out on salary raises and overtime opportunities; id. at ¶¶ 83-98;

• McDonough responding to an RPD vote of no-confidence which was premised largely on officers' objection to the Wheel of Death and delivered to McDonough by Bellantoni by “intensifying] his pattern of intimidation and retaliation”; e.g., threatening Bellantoni to divulge the names of those voting against him or “suffer the consequences”; id. at ¶¶ 116-30;

• McDonough telling an RPD captain that he assigned Mildon to be Plaintiffs' direct supervisor “so that Defendant Mildon can make Plaintiffs' time at the Department as miserable as possible”, in part due to Plaintiffs' objections to the Wheel of Death; id. at ¶¶ 131-32;

• Mildon making racist comments to Fernandez such as “I see you're eating rice and beans, how typical”; id. at ¶ 134.

On the strength of these and similar allegations, Fernandez and Bellantoni initially sued Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the NJLAD, and various other state and federal statutes. See generally ECF No. 1. As noted, Plaintiffs now seek to include Gutierrez in most of the general allegations previously made by Fernandez and Bellantoni. To this end, and as will be further discussed below, most of the PAC's factual allegations encompass Gutierrez. See, e.g., PAC at ¶ 14 (inserting “each Plaintiff” in place of “Fernandez and Bellantoni”). The same is true of the PAC's first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. Plaintiffs also seek to assert allegations specific to Gutierrez, such as Mildon responding to Gutierrez raising concerns about the Wheel of Death by pulling Gutierrez from an firearms course that would have enabled Gutierrez to become the RPD firearms instructor; Defendants hiring less qualified Caucasian officers over Gutierrez at McDonough's urging; and Mildon making racist comments to Gutierrez such as publicly addressing him as “Hey Guatemalan” and “rice and beans.” PAC at ¶¶ 79; 13545.

Plaintiffs' motion implicates Federal Rules 15, 20, and 21. See, e.g., Custom Pak Brokerage, LLC v. Dandrea Produce, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31681, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2014) (“[A]n attempt to add new parties by way of motion to amend invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21”) (citing Truesdale v. Ashcroft, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77143, at *7-8 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2006)); F.P. Corp. v. Ken Way Transp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3576, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 1992) (“[M]otions to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a) often implicate Rule 20(a) which governs permissive joinder.”) (citing Strawhecker v. Laurel School District, 100 F.R.D. 7, 13-14 (W.D. Pa. 1983)). The Court will therefore conduct Rule 15, 20, and 21 analyses seriatim.

III. Rule 15

a. Legal Standard and Summary of Defendants' Arguments

Under Rule 15(a), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The “three instances when a court typically may exercise its discretion to deny a Rule 15(a) motion for leave to amend [are] when ‘(1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.'” United States ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. Victaulic Co., 839 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 849 (3d Cir. 2014)). The Third Circuit “has interpreted these factors to emphasize that ‘prejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for the denial of the amendment.'” Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989) (quoting Cornell & Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Rev. Comm'n, 573 F.2d 820, 823 (3d Cir. 1978)).^[5]

“A court denies a motion to amend on futility grounds if the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We assess futility with the same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under Rule 12(b)(6).” Woodend v. Lenape Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 535 Fed.Appx. 164, 168 (3d Cir. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (quotation marks omitted)). In conducting this analysis, a court must “accept as true all of the factual allegations, as well as all reasonable inferences, reasonably drawn from the complaint, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing cases).

Defendants' Rule 15 arguments are that the proposed Monell claim is time-barred and substantively deficient and that Gutierrez's NJLAD claim is time-barred. The Court rejects Defendants' timeliness arguments and rejects in part and accepts in part Defendants' objections to the substance of the proposed Monell claim.

b. The Proposed Monell Claim^[6]

i. Background

Under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), “[l]ocal governing bodies . . . may be sued...