Ramnanan v. Keiffer

1

DR. TERRY RAMNANAN, Plaintiff, v. COLLIN KEIFFER, ESQ., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-12747 (ZNQ) (LHG)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 24, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ZAHID N. QURAISHI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Colin Keiffer (“Keiffer”), Wendy Berg (“Berg”) Grace Proetta (“Proetta”) and John Campanella's (“Campanella”) (collectively “State Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Dr. Terry Ramnanan's (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77), Defendants Ronald Hayek, D.C (“Hayek”) and Union Wellness Center P.A LLC's (“Union Wellness”) (collectively “Hayek Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 87), and Defendant Adam Awari, D.C. (“Awari”) and Advanced Chiro Spine Center P.C.'s (“Advanced Chiro”) (collectively “Awari Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No 81). Plaintiff opposed all motions (ECF Nos. 95, 96, 100), and State Defendants (ECF No. 103) and Hayek Defendants replied (ECF No. 104). After careful consideration of the Parties' submissions, the Court decides the Parties' Motions without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons outlined below, Count One of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and Counts Two and Three are dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this matter.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

A. Factual Background

The Court, cognizant it writes for the benefit of parties familiar with this matter, adopts and incorporates the factual background set forth in the Court's previous Opinion dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Op. 2-10, ECF No. 56.) In its Opinion today, the Court focuses only on additional allegations brought in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and whether such additions render Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint capable of surviving Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.^[2]

B. The Court's Previous Opinion

On June 30, 2021, this Court dismissed all counts against State Defendants, Hayek Defendants, and Awari Defendants without prejudice. (See generally id.)

1. State Defendants

As against State Defendants, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint brought six federal counts and five state law counts. (Id. at 8-9.) The six federal counts were: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of § 1983 for malicious prosecution; (3) violation of § 1983 for malicious abuse of process against the State Defendants; (4) violation of § 1983 for inducement of false testimony; (5) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights; and (6) violation of § 1983 for “stigma plus.” (Id.)

In evaluating federal counts one through five, the Court found that State Defendants were protected from all counts by absolute immunity. (Id. at 18-19.) Specifically, the Court found that “although Plaintiff asserts [] State Defendants' acted solely in an investigative capacity, the crux of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is that [] State Defendants' impropriety and evidence fabrication in preparation for and during grand jury proceedings led to his indictment.” (Id. at 18.) As the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations were directed at State Defendants' prosecutorial functions, as opposed to any investigatory function, absolute immunity attached. (Id.) As to federal count six, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a “stigma plus” claim under § 1983 where he only pled the alleged loss of private employment, which is not a deprivation of a protected interest under the Constitution or state law. (Id. at 20-21.) As such, all federal counts were dismissed against State Defendants.

Plaintiff also brought five state law counts against State Defendants: (1) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for malicious prosecution; (3) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for deprivation of Plaintiff's substantive due process rights; (4) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for conspiracy; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). (Id. at 9.) As all the federal claims against State Defendants were dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. (Id. at 26.)

2. Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint also brought three federal counts and three state law counts against Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants. (Id. at 8-9.) The three federal counts were: (1) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of § 1983 for malicious prosecution; and (3) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights. (Id.)

The Court previously found that Plaintiff could not sustain any of his federal counts against Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants because Plaintiff “failed to plausibly allege [] Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants acted jointly with [] State Defendants in this matter.” (Id. at 23.) As such, Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants cannot be considered state actors acting under the color of law. (Id. at 22-23.) In so finding, the Court noted that “Plaintiff's [First] Amended Complaint [was] replete with factual allegations that [] State Defendants ‘coerced [Hayek and Awari] to give false, misleading and dishonest testimony.'” (See id. at 22.) Such allegations effectively negated any claim that State Defendants and either Hayek Defendants or Awari Defendants were working jointly towards a common goal. (See id.) Accordingly, all federal counts were dismissed against Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants without prejudice. (Id. at 23.) Moreover, because all federal counts were dismissed against Hayek Defendants and Awari Defendants, the Court again declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counts brought against them.

Despite granting all Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, the Court did so without prejudice to give Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify his pleadings and address the concerns the Court raised in its Opinion. (Order, ECF No. 57.) Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, which he timely did on September 13, 2021. (ECF No. 71.)

C. Changes in Second Amended Complaint

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes several significant changes. (See generally Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 71.) To begin, Plaintiff no longer brings any claims against the Attorney General and his office, and Plaintiff now alleges only eight counts against remaining Defendants, as opposed to the previous twelve counts alleged. (Id. ¶¶ 307-73.)

1. Amended Allegations Against State Defendants

As against State Defendants, Plaintiff brings only three federal counts: (1) violation of § 1983 for the fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of § 1983 for malicious prosecution;^[3]and (3) conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights brought under § 1983.^[4] (Id. ¶¶ 307-332.) Plaintiff, however, brings the same five state law counts against State Defendants: (1) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for fabrication of evidence; (2) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for malicious prosecution; (3) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for deprivation of Plaintiff's substantive due process rights; (4) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 6:10-1, et seq., for conspiracy; and (5) IIED. (Id. ¶¶ 333-73.)

The Court previously found that State Defendants were absolutely immune from Plaintiff's claims under § 1983. (Op. at 18.) The basis for the Court's finding was that Plaintiff's allegations against State Defendants alleged wrongdoing committed by State Defendants when they were performing protected prosecutorial functions, i.e., presenting information to a grand jury. (Id. at 20-21.) Plaintiff now alleges, while retaining his previous pleadings about misleading evidence being presented to a grand jury, that State Defendants presented fabricated evidence to Plaintiff in an effort to gain his cooperation in investigating potential claims against Todd Koppel M.D. (“Koppel”). (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 119, 164, 181, 251.)

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in Spring 2016, State Defendants were investigating Koppel as a “leader of a multi-million-dollar insurance fraud scheme,” but “were having trouble finding evidence to corroborate their suspicions.” (Id. ¶¶ 61, 62, 67.) Plaintiff further alleges that State Defendants believed Plaintiff had critical information for the Koppel investigation and sought to gain his cooperation by any means necessary, even if that meant fabricating evidence. (See generally id. ¶¶ 69-123.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that State Defendants provided him four misleading or fabricated pieces of evidence that State Defendants threatened would be used against Plaintiff if he did not cooperate with their investigation. (Id. ¶¶ 70, 83, 86, 90, 99, 108, 113, 146, 156, 157, 161, 164, 173, 181, 182, 193.)

The four pieces of evidence Plaintiff alleges are fabricated are 1) the “Kickback Spreadsheet”; 2) the “Hayek Audio Transcript”; (3) the “Summary Chart”; and (4) the “Insurance Billing Chart.” (Id.) At least one of these alleged fabricated pieces of evidence, the Kickback Spreadsheet, is alleged to have been provided to Plaintiff before either his 2017 indictment or 2018 superseding indictment. (Id. ¶¶ 83, 131, 196.) Two other documents, the Summary Chart and Insurance Billing Chart, were provided to Plaintiff between the return of the first indictment and superseding indictment. (Id. ¶¶ 155-65, 173-86.) It is not clear...