Case Law Major Tours Inc. v. Colorel

Major Tours Inc. v. Colorel

Document Cited Authorities (98) Cited in (59) Related

720 F.Supp.2d 587

MAJOR TOURS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Michael COLOREL, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 05-3091 (JBS/JS).

United States District Court,D. New Jersey.

June 22, 2010.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Terry Davon Johnson, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, Princeton, NJ, Thomas Kane, Esq., Lawrenceville, NJ, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Esq., William Gibson, Esq., Dechert LLP, Lawrenceville, NJ, Yvette Claudia Sterling, Esq., Barbara E. Ransom, Esq., Sterling Law Firm, L.L.C., Burlington City, NJ, Michael Churchill, Esq., Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Nonee Lee Wagner, Deputy Attorney General, Wayne J. Martorelli, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the NJ Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, Holly Rebecca Rogers, Esq., Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, John J. Higson, Esq., Dilworth Paxson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants Michael Colorel, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Sharon Harrington, Diane Legriede, Vincent Shulze, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, Kris Kolluri, and John F. Lettiere.

William J. Pollinger, Esq., William J. Pollinger, P.A., Hackensack, NJ, for Defendants Jimmy's Lake Side Garage and James Restuccio.

SIMANDLE, District Judge: 

+-----------------+
¦Table of Contents¦
+-----------------¦
+-----------------+
 
+--------------------------------------+
¦I.  ¦INTRODUCTION                 ¦593¦
+----+-----------------------------+---¦
+----+-----------------------------+---¦
¦II. ¦BACKGROUND                   ¦593¦
+----+-----------------------------+---¦
+----+-----------------------------+---¦
¦III.¦DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS¦596¦
+--------------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Rooker-Feldman Doctrine ¦596¦
++--+------------------------+---¦
¦¦B.¦Younger Abstention      ¦598¦
+--------------------------------+
 
+------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦Nature of the Interference ¦599¦
+++--+---------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦Dismissal of Damages Claims¦600¦
+++--+---------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦3.¦Prospective Injunction     ¦601¦
+------------------------------------+
 
+------------------------------------------+
¦¦C.¦Sovereign Immunity                ¦601¦
++--+----------------------------------+---¦
¦¦D.¦Sufficiency of Factual Allegations¦603¦
+------------------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦New Jersey Civil Rights Act and Section 1983 Claims with respect to ¦604¦
¦¦¦  ¦Equal Protection                                                    ¦   ¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦Procedural Due Process                                              ¦606¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦3.¦Substantive Due Process                                             ¦607¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦4.¦Interstate Commerce and Right to Travel                             ¦608¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦5.¦Conversion                                                          ¦610¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦6.¦Federal and State Conspiracy Claims                                 ¦610¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
+-------------------------------+
¦¦E.¦Governmental Immunity  ¦611¦
++--+-----------------------+---¦
¦¦F.¦Statute of Limitations ¦612¦
++--+-----------------------+---¦
+-------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------------+
¦IV.¦PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND¦613¦
+-----------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Procedural Background                           ¦613¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦B.¦Standard of Decision                            ¦614¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦C.¦New Allegations Regarding Supervisory Defendants¦614¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦D.¦Additional Claims and Other New Allegations     ¦615¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦E.¦Clarifying Amendments                           ¦616¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦F.¦Summary                                         ¦617¦
++--+------------------------------------------------+---¦
+--------------------------------------------------------+
 
+---------------------------------------+
¦V.¦APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER¦617¦
+---------------------------------------+
 
+--------------------------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Background of the E-mail Discovery Dispute¦617¦
++--+------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦B.¦Standard of Review                        ¦619¦
++--+------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦C.¦Analysis                                  ¦619¦
+--------------------------------------------------+
 
+-----------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦De Novo Review      ¦619¦
+++--+--------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦Abuse of Discretion ¦621¦
+++--+--------------------+---¦
+-----------------------------+
 
+-------------------+
¦VI.¦CONCLUSION ¦621¦
+-------------------+
 

I. INTRODUCTION

This civil rights case involves allegations of racial discrimination in New Jersey's system of commercial bus safety inspections. Plaintiffs bring this action against two groups of defendants, the state agencies and officials who operate the inspection system (“State Defendants”) and a repair shop and its owner who Plaintiffs allege are involved in the discrimination (“Garage Defendants”). The matter is before the Court on the State Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. [Docket Item 260] and Plaintiffs' crossmotion to file a Fourth Amended Complaint under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P. [Docket Item 287]. 1 Both sets of Defendants oppose the motion to amend. Plaintiffs also appeal a decision of Magistrate Judge Schneider regarding preservation of government emails and discovery of email backup tapes [Docket Item 284].

For the reasons explained below in today's Opinion, the Court will grant the State Defendants' motion to dismiss except as to certain claims against Defendants Shulze and Colorel. 2 The Court will deny the motion to amend except insofar as it clarifies the current complaint with respect to the remaining claims because the additional claims and allegations are unduly delayed and prejudicial. Magistrate Judge Schneider's discovery ruling will be affirmed.

II. BACKGROUND

New Jersey's Bus Safety Compliance Act (“BSCA”) creates a system of inspections to promote vehicle safety. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:4-2.1. Federal law makes states eligible to receive federal grants if they adopt and enforce certain safety regulations. 49 C.F.R. §§ 350.107, 350.201(a). Regulations promulgated pursuant to the BSCA expressly adopt and incorporate by reference certain federal rules pertaining to safety of vehicle equipment in order to receive grants under the federal program. N.J. Admin Code § 16:53-1.1 (adopting 49 C.F.R. § 393). The BSCA regulations, modeled on these federal rules, provide that authorized officers can direct any bus operated in New Jersey to immediately drive to a designated facility for inspection. N.J. Admin Code § 16:53A-6.1. Buses discovered to have a mechanical condition that would likely cause an accident or a breakdown, a so-called “out-of-service violation,” may be required to unload passengers and be prevented from operating until the conditions have been repaired on-site or until towed and fixed at a repair facility. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:4-2.1(h). Additionally, the bus company is subject to civil penalties for each violation. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:4-2.1(f).

Plaintiffs are six African American owned and operated bus companies and their individual owners. 3 They offer bus tours between Pennsylvania and casinos that market to African Americans in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Both the passengers and drivers of the buses are largely African American. Beginning in 2000, according to Plaintiffs, they allegedly began to experience a pattern of racial discrimination in the bus inspection program that is ongoing.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that bus inspectors gather near casinos that have primarily African American clientele, targeting casino buses, instead of randomly selecting buses for inspection. They claim that this initially discriminatory targeting leads to further increased scrutiny, because buses may be stopped based on data collected during prior inspections and kept in a database, leading to further stops and inspections.

Plaintiffs allege that when they are stopped, they are often subjected to the highest level of inspection, unlike white-owned bus operators with inferior safety and compliance records. They allege that even the highest level of inspection should only take about an hour, but that inspections of Plaintiffs' buses typically take three to four hours.

Plaintiffs allege that the inspectors fabricate violations of the BSCA, finding out-of-service violations even on new or nearly-new buses. When a violation is found or invented, Defendants discriminate against them by exercising their discretion to require towing to a repair shop instead of allowing on-site repair. The inspectors require the buses to be towed to Jimmy's Lake Side Repair Shop, owned by Defendant James Restuccio, who charges them above the prevailing market rates, subjects them to verbal abuse, and “typically cannot perform the allegedly necessary repairs,” requiring Plaintiffs to tow the buses elsewhere for repairs. (Compl. ¶ 35.) The inspectors allow white-owned bus operators to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2012
Pioneer Aggregates, Inc. v. Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
"...(3d Cir. 1997) (agency prohibited from implementing discriminatory formal or informal waste disposal policy); Major Tours, Inc. v. Colore!, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587,609 (D.N.J. 2010) (discretionary actions of state officials); Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Com., Dep't of Envt'l Res., 684 A.2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2011
Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel
"...Plaintiffs' buses for two years. A more complete description of this lengthy and contentious litigation appears in Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F.Supp.2d 587 (D.N.J.2010).1 The matter is before the Court on several motions. The State Defendants move for summary judgment as to Plaintiff..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2019
Baldeo v. City of Paterson, Civ. No. 18-5359 (KM) (SCM)
"...considered motions to dismiss for failure to file a notice of tort claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 604, 611 (D.N.J. 2010); Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 600-01 (D.N.J. 2002). The distinction makes no substantive differenc..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2015
O'Leary v. Sloan
"...defendants except Plaintiffs' claims under the New Jersey Constitution and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 611 (D.N.J. 2010) ("The [TCA] does not grant public employees immunity from suits under rights of action provided by the New Jersey ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2016
Strategic Envtl. Partners, LLC v. Bucco
"...the NJCRA or the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law. See N.J.S.A. 10:6–2, 52:13D–21 to –23; see also, e.g., Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel , 720 F.Supp.2d 587, 602 (D.N.J.2010) (dismissing NJCRA claims asserted against state officials because the State did not waive its sovereign immunity)...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
3 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 31-2, December 2014
Remove the Muzzle and Give Rule 37(b) Teeth: Advocating for the Imposition of Sanctions for Rule 26(c) Protective Order Violations in the Eleventh Circuit
"...R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added).191. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) Advisory Committee's note (2006); Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 618 (D.N.J. 2010). The seven factors include: (1) the specificity of the discovery request; [(2)] the quantity of information available fro..."
Document | Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
1 The Duty to Preserve Evidence
"...F.3d at 1345 (citing Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). See also Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 619 (D.N.J. 2010) (observing that "[t]o the extent that plaintiffs frame their appeal as an argument that no matter the other circumstance..."
Document | Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
Table of Cases
"...1986), 281 Mahaffey v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No. 11-995, 2012 WL 4833370 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2012), 374 Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D.N.J. 2010), 5 Malinou v. The Mirian Hosp., 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011), 276, 277 Manorcare Health Servs. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 764..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 31-2, December 2014
Remove the Muzzle and Give Rule 37(b) Teeth: Advocating for the Imposition of Sanctions for Rule 26(c) Protective Order Violations in the Eleventh Circuit
"...R. Civ. P. 26(c) (emphasis added).191. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) Advisory Committee's note (2006); Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 618 (D.N.J. 2010). The seven factors include: (1) the specificity of the discovery request; [(2)] the quantity of information available fro..."
Document | Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
1 The Duty to Preserve Evidence
"...F.3d at 1345 (citing Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). See also Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 619 (D.N.J. 2010) (observing that "[t]o the extent that plaintiffs frame their appeal as an argument that no matter the other circumstance..."
Document | Spoliation of Evidence: Sanctions & Remedies for Destruction of Evidence in Civil Litigation (ABA)
Table of Cases
"...1986), 281 Mahaffey v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No. 11-995, 2012 WL 4833370 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 2012), 374 Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D.N.J. 2010), 5 Malinou v. The Mirian Hosp., 24 A.3d 497 (R.I. 2011), 276, 277 Manorcare Health Servs. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc., 764..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania – 2012
Pioneer Aggregates, Inc. v. Pa. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
"...(3d Cir. 1997) (agency prohibited from implementing discriminatory formal or informal waste disposal policy); Major Tours, Inc. v. Colore!, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587,609 (D.N.J. 2010) (discretionary actions of state officials); Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Com., Dep't of Envt'l Res., 684 A.2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2011
Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel
"...Plaintiffs' buses for two years. A more complete description of this lengthy and contentious litigation appears in Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F.Supp.2d 587 (D.N.J.2010).1 The matter is before the Court on several motions. The State Defendants move for summary judgment as to Plaintiff..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2019
Baldeo v. City of Paterson, Civ. No. 18-5359 (KM) (SCM)
"...considered motions to dismiss for failure to file a notice of tort claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 604, 611 (D.N.J. 2010); Garlanger v. Verbeke, 223 F. Supp. 2d 596, 600-01 (D.N.J. 2002). The distinction makes no substantive differenc..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2015
O'Leary v. Sloan
"...defendants except Plaintiffs' claims under the New Jersey Constitution and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 720 F. Supp. 2d 587, 611 (D.N.J. 2010) ("The [TCA] does not grant public employees immunity from suits under rights of action provided by the New Jersey ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2016
Strategic Envtl. Partners, LLC v. Bucco
"...the NJCRA or the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law. See N.J.S.A. 10:6–2, 52:13D–21 to –23; see also, e.g., Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel , 720 F.Supp.2d 587, 602 (D.N.J.2010) (dismissing NJCRA claims asserted against state officials because the State did not waive its sovereign immunity)...."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.