CASTRO v. ATLANTIC COUNTY et al

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying as moot 157 Motion for Summary Judgment and 159 Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants may (1) file their answers to Plaintiff's third amended complaint, or (2) file a letter on the docket stating that they seek summary judgment in their favor on the claims against them in Plaintiff's third amended complaint within 15 days. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/21/2020. (tf, )

Case 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS Document 191 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 9587

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL CASTRO,
Plaintiff,

1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER

v.
ATLANTIC COUNTY, ATLANTIC
COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, MULLICA
TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:
DOUGLAS L. CODY
CODY & CODY, ESQS.
653 WHITE HORSE PIKE
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037
MARTIN P. DUFFEY
COZEN AND O'CONNOR
LIBERTY VIEW BLDG.
457 HADDONFIELD RD
SUITE 300
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002
On behalf of Plaintiff
JAMES T. DUGAN
ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1333 ATLANTIC AVENUE
8TH FLOOR
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401
On behalf of Atlantic County Defendants
ROBERT J. MCGUIRE
STEPHEN RALPH TUCKER
BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON
NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
25 MARKET STREET

Case 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS Document 191 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 9588

P.O. BOX 116
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of State of New Jersey Defendants
THOMAS B. REYNOLDS
REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C.
750 ROUTE 73 SOUTH
SUITE 202A
MARLTON, NJ 08053
On behalf of Mullica Township Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, this matter concerns constitutional and state law
claims by Plaintiff arising out of his arrests and grand jury
indictments for murder and other charges, all of which were
ultimately dismissed; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the Mullica Township
Defendants and the State of New Jersey Defendants filed motions
for summary judgment [157, 159]; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint [161],
and on December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third amended
complaint [162]; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, Defendant Joseph Rauch, a
detective for the Atlantic County Prosecutors Office, who had
been dismissed as a defendant on September 11, 2017 pursuant to
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint [64], filed his answer
[163] to the third amended complaint, which renamed him as a

2

Case 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS Document 191 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 9589

defendant; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, Rauch filed a motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims against him in Plaintiff’s
third amended complaint [183], which motion is currently
pending; but
WHEREAS, the motions for summary judgment by the Mullica
Hill Defendants and the other State of New Jersey Defendants
relating to Plaintiff’s claims against them advanced in
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint are still pending, but
these defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiff’s
third amended complaint; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the filing of Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint moots the Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey
Defendants’ motions relative to the second amended complaint,
see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d
Cir. 2002) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original
version in providing the blueprint for the future course of a
lawsuit.”); but
WHEREAS, the Court recognizes that the substance of the
Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey Defendants’ motions may not
have changed substantively as a result of Plaintiff’s third
amended complaint 1;

1

The Court has not independently compared the 229-page third
amended complaint with the 219-page second amended complaint,
3

Case 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS Document 191 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 9590

THEREFORE,
IT IS on this

21st

day of

July

, 2020

ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment by the
Mullica Hill Defendants [157] and the State of New Jersey
Defendants [159] concerning Plaintiff’s claims in his second
amended complaint be, and the same hereby are, DENIED AS MOOT;
and it is further
ORDERED that, within 15 days, these Defendants may (1) file
their answers to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, or (2)
file a letter on the docket stating that they seek summary
judgment in their favor on the claims against them in
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, and that they rely upon
their prior submissions, and if Defendants choose this option,
Defendants shall indicate whether and how any claims in
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint affect their requests for
relief, or (3) file new motions for summary judgment relating to
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint 2; and it is finally

but it appears from the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint, which motion was
considered by and granted by the Magistrate Judge, the main
difference between the two complaints is the renaming of Rauch
as a defendant. The Court leaves it to the parties to indicate
whether Rauch’s addition as a defendant, or any other change in
the third amended complaint, affects their arguments presented
in their summary judgment motions.
2

The Court recognizes that a party may file a motion for summary
judgment in response to a complaint rather than file an answer.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (“Unless a different time is set by
4

Case 1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS Document 191 Filed 07/21/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 9591

ORDERED that after Defendants have complied with the
Court’s Order, Plaintiff shall respond similarly with regard to
his oppositions to Defendants’ summary judgment motions. 3

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a
motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the
close of all discovery.”). The Court leaves it to Defendants’
discretion on how they wish to proceed, including the option of
not seeking summary judgment at this time. It does not appear
that Defendant Atlantic County, which is named in the third
amended complaint, has filed an answer or otherwise responded to
the third amended complaint.
3

This Order does not impact Defendant Rauch’s motion for summary
judgment, which has just concluded briefing, as he filed an
answer to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint and then filed his
summary judgment motion relative to the third amended complaint.
5