VAN ORDEN v. BOROUGH OF WOODSTOWN, NJ et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 12/9/2013. (tf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KATHRYN M. VAN ORDEN,
individually and as
administratrix ad prosequendum
of the Estate of Celena J.
Sylvestri,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Civil Action
No. 13-5002 (JBS/AMD)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
v.
BOROUGH OF WOODSTOWN, et al.,
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Kathryn Van Orden brings this suit individually
and as administratrix of the estate of Celena J. Sylvestri, her
daughter who drowned in her car after officials opened the
floodgates of the Veterans Memorial Lake Dam in Salem County in
anticipation of the arrival of Hurricane Irene in August 2011.
Plaintiff alleges that state and local officials were negligent
in opening the floodgates without closing the road or properly
notifying drivers of the potentially dangerous conditions.
Before the Court is an unopposed motion to dismiss by the State
of New Jersey, the New Jersey State Police, and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Dam Safety and
Flood Control (collectively, “State Defendants”). [Docket Item
16.]
Because the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
bars suits against the state in federal court in these
circumstances, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
1. Plaintiff brings seven counts against all Defendants, 1
including negligence, vicarious liability, “state created
danger” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, strict liability, wrongful
death, and a survival action under state law. (Compl. ¶¶ 62100.)
2. The State Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that
state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment deprives
this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims by
private parties seeking money damages to be paid from public
funds in the state treasury. (Mot. Br. at 3.) Defendants argue
that New Jersey has not waived sovereign immunity and no federal
statute abrogates immunity in this case. (Id. at 3-4.) In
addition, Defendants argue that dismissal of the § 1983 claim is
appropriate because the State and its agencies are not “persons”
1
The Complaint also names as Defendants the Borough of
Woodstown, N.J., the Woodstown Police Department, Salem County,
N.J., the Salem County Sheriff, Pilesgrove Township, N.J., and
unnamed individuals and companies. The Borough of Woodstown, the
Woodstown Police Department and Pilesgrove Township (“Municipal
Defendants”) have filed a second motion to dismiss, which will
be decided separately.
2
within the meaning of § 1983, and thus the statute is
inapplicable. (Id. at 4.)
3. Plaintiff responds that she does “not oppose dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims against Defendants State of New
Jersey, New Jersey State Police, and New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood
Control.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Rule 12(b)(6) Mot. [Docket Item 29] at
1.)
4. “A foundational premise of the federal system is that
States, as sovereigns, are immune from suits for damages, save
as they elect to waive that defense.” Coleman v. Court of
Appeals of Md., 132 S. Ct. 1327, 1333 (2012). Immunity may be
waived by the state or abrogated by federal statute passed
pursuant to congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment. MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Bell Atl. Pa., 271 F.3d 491,
503-04 (3d Cir. 2001). Section 1983 does not abrogate sovereign
immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 341 (1979).
5. There is no indication in this case that the State has
waived immunity or that any applicable federal statute abrogates
sovereign immunity. For these reasons, and with consent of
Plaintiff, the Court will dismiss all claims against the State
Defendants.
6. The State Defendants also move for dismissal of the
cross-claim brought by the Municipal Defendants seeking
3
contribution from the State under N.J.S.A. § 2A:15-5.3, N.J.S.A.
§ 2A:53a-2, et seq., and the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.
(Municipal Defendants’ Answer [Docket Item 24] at 15.) Crossclaims for contribution by a municipality or county against the
state raise questions of state law subject to the same sovereign
immunity analysis described above. See Cnty. of Oneida. v.
Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 252-53 (1985) (holding that
a county’s cross-claim for indemnity by the state raises a
question of state law and finding no evidence the state waived
its constitutional immunity). Here, like in Oneida, the Court
has been “referred to no evidence that the State has waived its
constitutional immunity to suit in federal court on this
question.” Id. at 252. Therefore, sovereign immunity bars any
cross-claim for contribution against the State Defendants. 2
2
The Municipal Defendants did not file a response to the State
Defendants’ motion, but had notice on the electronic docket that
the State Defendants sought to dismiss all cross-claims. (See
Notice of Mot. to Dismiss [Docket Item 16] at 2 (“the State . .
. shall move . . . for an Order Dismissing the Complaint along
with any and all cross-claims”).) It is not apparent to the
Court that the County Defendants have brought any cross-claims
against the State Defendants. (See Cnty. Defendants’ Answer
[Docket Item 19].) To the extent they have brought a cross-claim
for contribution, it is barred by sovereign immunity for the
same reasons. The dismissal is jurisdictional and therefore is
without prejudice to the Municipal Defendants’ right to seek
contribution against the State Defendants in a court of
competent jurisdiction.
4
7. The Court grants the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss
all claims and cross-claims for contribution against them. An
accompanying Order will be entered.
December 9, 2013
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?