Thompson-El v. Twp. of Green Brook

1

GEORGIA THOMPSON-EL, Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF GREEN BROOK, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-14253 (GC) (TJB)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 21, 2024

OPINION

CASTNER, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants'-Green Brook Township's and Anthony Pepe's (Green Brook Defendants)-Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 56.^[1] (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff Georgia Thompson-El opposed. (ECF No 76; see also ECF No. 82 (designating the relevant summary judgment motion papers).) Defendants replied. (ECF No. 81.) The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, and other good cause shown, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically judgment is entered in Defendants' favor on the failure-to-train and unconstitutional custom claim against Green Brook Township (Count III) and supervisory liability claim against “Green Brook John Doe Defendant” (Count IV). The Motion is denied as to all other claims.

I.BACKGROUND^[2]

A. Procedural Background

On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff brought suit against Green Brook Township and Officer Anthony Pepe of the Green Brook Police Department (GBPD). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that she was “arrested and charged with multiple crimes without probable cause and with willful and reckless disregard as to whether [the Green Brook Defendants] had charged the right person with the alleged crimes.” (Id. at 5.^[3])

Plaintiff asserts seven claims against the Green Brook Defendants: (1) unlawful arrest and imprisonment against Officer Pepe in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I)^[4]; (2) malicious prosecution against Officer Pepe in violation of § 1983 (Count II); (3) municipal liability against Green Brook Township in violation of § 1983 (Count III); supervisory liability against “Green Brook John Doe Defendant” in violation of § 1983 (Count IV); false arrest and false imprisonment in violation of state law (Count V); malicious prosecution in violation of state law (Count VI); and violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2 et seq. (Count VII). (ECF No. 1.)

B. Statement of Facts^[5]

1. Undisputed Facts

On April 8, 2017, while Plaintiff was at Bonefish Grill in Green Brook, a customer identified as T.L. observed her wallet laying on the ground and multiple credit cards missing. (ECF No. 79-5.) Shortly after discovering that her credit cards were missing, T.L. received alerts regarding potentially fraudulent activity. (Id.) Subsequently, an employee from Bonefish Grill called the GBPD to report the theft of T.L.'s credit cards. (Defs. SMF ¶ 1; Pl. SMF ¶ 1.)

Following the employee's call, three officers from the GBPD responded to Bonefish Grill and met with T.L. (Defs. SMF ¶ 2; Pl. SMF ¶ 2.) T.L. reported that she was sitting at a table inside Bonefish Grill when she felt someone bump into her, but she did not think much of it. (Id.) After receiving the bill, T.L. grabbed her purse on the empty chair next to her and realized her wallet was not inside the purse. (Id.) T.L. looked around the restaurant and located her wallet on the floor under the chair where the purse was located. (Id.) Only then did T.L. notice that multiple credit cards were missing from her wallet, including two Chase credit cards, one Target card, one Macy's credit card, one Walmart credit card, one TD Bank debit card, and one USAA debit card. (Id.) Soon after, T.L. received the alert of possible fraudulent activity, including at a Target and a Walmart-both in Watchung, New Jersey.^[6] (Id.) T.L. was advised that the purchase at Walmart was processed around 7:15 p.m. (Id.) Additionally, one of the officers that responded to Bonefish Grill viewed surveillance footage from the restaurant that showed three potential suspects, including a male and two females. (Id.)

On April 13, 2017, Officer Anthony Pepe of the GBPD was assigned to follow up on the investigation regarding T.L.'s stolen credit and debit cards. (Defs. SMF ¶ 3; Pl. SMF ¶ 3.) While many aspects of Officer Pepe's investigation are disputed, it is undisputed that he did the following: (1) reviewed surveillance footage from the Bonefish Grill, Target, and Walmart; conducted a search of Plaintiff's motor vehicle information; and contacted Plaintiff via phone. (Id.; Pl. SAF ¶ 12; Def. SAF ¶ 12; ECF No. 76-6 at 35; Def. SAF ¶ 12.) It is also undisputed that the Bonefish Grill surveillance footage Officer Pepe viewed was not preserved, and only still images from the video are available. (Pl. SMF ¶ 3; ECF No. 76-6 at 78.) Those images have been submitted to the Court. (See ECF No. 76-5.)

As part of his investigation, Officer Pepe contacted Plaintiff via phone. (Pl. SAF ¶ 12; Def. SAF ¶ 12.) Plaintiff denied any involvement in the Bonefish Grill incident and hung up the phone on Officer Pepe. (Id.)

Following the investigation, Officer Pepe sought to bring criminal charges against Plaintiff for the theft at the Bonefish Grill. (Defs. SMF ¶ 4; Pl. SMF ¶ 4.) Specifically, Officer Pepe sought to charge Plaintiff with the following crimes: third-degree intent to defraud an authorized user of a payment card, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21-6.1(b)(1); third-degree impersonation/identity theft, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21-17(a)(4); and third-degree theft by deception, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:20-4(a). (Defs. SMF ¶ 4; Pl. SMF ¶ 4.) In support of the charges, he submitted a Screening Decision Memorandum to the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office (SCPOM) and requested that a warrant be issued as Plaintiff was “out of the country” and had pending criminal charges in Mercer County. (Id.) The “Narrative of Incident” in the SCPOM reads as follows:

On 4/08/2017 at approximately 1615 hours the victim was eating [a]t Bonefish Grill located at 215 Rt. 22 East in Green Brook when her purse was stolen. After reviewing surveillance video[,] it shows both suspects enter the restaurant and leave within a short period of time. The same suspects are seen making purchases at Target and Walmart located at 1515 Rt. 22 West in Watchung N.J. utilizing the Victim's stolen USAA credit card and TD Bank Debit card. The USAA credit card was used to purchase $2,600.00 in merchandise at Target. The victim's TD Bank debit card is used making a purchase in the amount of $505.31 by the same suspects on the same day. Both transactions were caught on CCTV surveillance video.

[(ECF No. 79-7; Defs. SMF ¶ 4; Pl. SMF ¶ 4.)]

After the charges were approved, Officer Pepe filed a complaint-warrant against Plaintiff. (Defs. SMF ¶ 5; Pl. SMF ¶ 5.) The affidavit of probable cause, attached to the complaint-warrant, detailed the following:

On 04/08/2017 at approximately 1930 hours, patrol responded to Bonefish Grill in reference to a stolen purse. Shortly after the incident, the victim received alerts of fraudulent activity on her USSA and TD Bank debit cards. Both cards were fraudulently used in Watchung at Target and Walmart by the defendant which was learned through surveillance video.

[ECF No. 79-8; Defs. SMF ¶ 5; Pl. SMF ¶ 5.)]

A municipal court judge approved the complaint-warrant in September 2017. (Defs. SMF ¶ 6; Pl. SMF ¶ 6.) Subsequently, the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office (SCPO) presented the matter to the grand jury in December 2017. (Defs. SMF ¶ 7; Pl. SMF ¶ 7.) The grand jury indicted Plaintiff. (Id.)

While the parties do not include information regarding Plaintiff's arrest, it appears undisputed from the record that Plaintiff was arrested on April 4, 2018. (ECF No. 76-8 at 87.) Per the record, Plaintiff was pulled over and arrested based on the complaint-warrant. (ECF No. 76-6 Ex. A at 16:1-20:24.) Plaintiff spent several days detained in Somerset County and was then transferred to Mercer County pursuant to a bench warrant related to the Lawrence Township matter. (Id.)

On November 2, 2018, the SCPO moved to dismiss the charges against Plaintiff, which was granted by the Superior Court of New Jersey. (Defs. SMF ¶ 8; Pl. SMF ¶ 8.)

2. Disputed Facts

The factual disputes in this case largely relate to Officer Pepe's investigation. First, the parties disagree as to which employee from Bonefish Grill reported the credit card thefts to the GBPD. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 1.) The Green Brook Defendants contend that Brian Sharkey, the manager of the Bonefish Grill reported the incident as reflected in the incident report.^[7] (Defs. SMF ¶ 1 (citing ECF No. 79-4 at 2).) In contrast, Plaintiff contends that the identity of the Bonefish Grill employee is unknown. (Pl. SMF ¶ 1.) In support of this position, Plaintiff points to documentation from the SCPO that indicates the GBPD was unable to provide the name of the employee that reported the thefts because “[t]here is a high turnover at the restaurant and no one knows the name of the employee.” (Id. (citing ECF No. 76-8).) Plaintiff further supports her position by citing to deposition testimony of Officer Pepe where he stated that the responding officers “didn't get that employee's info. . . . However, as I tried to follow up on both occasions, the witness didn't want to come forward . . . [and] it was impossible to actually get that witness's information” because the restaurant was “changing hands.” (ECF No. 76 at 33:13-34:7.)

In light of the identity issue, the parties dispute the information reported by the Bonefish Grill employee. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 1.) The Green Brook Defendants assert that the employee told law enforcement about three individuals that left on foot and then drove away in either a black sedan or a silver Nissan Altima, and that the employee provided license plate numbers for...