SUAREZ v. JOHNSON
Filing
40
OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams on 1/29/2018. (rtm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
[Doc. No. 30]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
MILDRED SUAREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil No. 16-2509 (KMW)
LEMUEL JOHNSON,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant.
Dominic A. Speziali, Esq.
Quinn Law Group, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff
Darren C. Kayal, Esq.
Rudolph & Kayal, Manasquan, NJ for Defendant
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion seeking partial summary
judgment as to liability.
Defendant opposes this Motion.
The
Court has reviewed the submissions and held oral argument on
January 26, 2018.
For the reasons set forth more fully on the
record during the January 26, 2018 oral argument, Plaintiff’s
Motion is granted.
1.
It is undisputed that on May 19, 2015, Plaintiff Mildred
Suarez was headed to work in a minivan driven by her co-worker
Placido Mario De Oleo on Route 130 in New Jersey. The minivan was
1
rear-ended by a car driven by Defendant.
Defendant was in the
middle lane of Route 130 for not “more than five or six seconds”
when he began to merge into the left lane and then collided with
the minivan that had already been in the left lane when he merged.
Defendant testified that as he pulled into the left lane he
observed a stopped minivan, and he applied his brakes but was
unable to successfully stop before impact.1
2. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). “A fact is ‘material’ under Rule 56 if its existence or
nonexistence
might impact the outcome of the suit under the
applicable substantive law.”
Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410,
416 (3d Cir. 2015)(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Moreover, “[a] dispute over a material fact
is ‘genuine’ if ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.’”
Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249).
The
moving party bears the burden of identifying portions of the record
that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Defendant sought to rely upon the deposition transcript of Edilio Moncion
from a lawsuit filed in New Jersey state court in opposition to the summary
judgment motion. However, the Court does not consider the aforementioned
testimony because same was never disclosed to Plaintiff and Defendant
conceded that he could not meet the standard to rely upon same for purposes
of the summary judgment motion.
2
1
Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
The burden then “shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the
pleadings and ‘come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.’’”
Id. (quoting Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
Finally, all evidence shall be construed, and all reasonable
inferences drawn, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.
Id.
3. During the January 26th oral argument, this Court found that
Defendant failed to maintain a reasonably safe distance from the
minivan and his failure to do so caused the collision.
The Court
relied upon the case Buzby v. Momjian, 2015 WL 1510455, at *1
(D.N.J. April 1, 2015)(Simandle).
In Buzby, defendant was driving
behind plaintiff when plaintiff approached an intersection, slowed
down, and signaled a left turn.
Id.
Defendant did not see the
blinker, nor did defendant observe that plaintiff slowed down,
thus, defendant made impact with plaintiff’s car.
Id.
After the
accident, the police officer noted defendant’s inattentiveness.
Id.
Judge Simandle noted that New Jersey courts have consistently
concluded that “a following car in the same lane of traffic is
obligated to maintain a reasonably safe distance behind a car ahead
[and the failure] to do so resulting in a collision, is negligence,
and a jury should be so instructed.”
3
Id. (citing Jones v. Bennett,
306 N.J. Super. 476 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)).
Judge
Simandle found that defendant admitted that plaintiff’s vehicle
was stopped when he hit the back of her car while driving closely
behind her.
Id.
Moreover, the court found that even if plaintiff
came to a sudden or unexpected stop, defendant had a duty to
maintain a safe following distance to avoid a collision.
Id.
Therefore, Judge Simandle found that the record confirms that
defendant failed to maintain a safe following distance and the
failure resulted in the accident.
granted
plaintiff’s
summary
defendant’s liability.
Id.
judgment
Thus, Judge Simandle
motion
on
the
issue
of
Id.
4. Similarly here, Defendant admits that he was changing lanes,
the minivan had come to a stop and he could not stop in time, thus,
he collided with the back of the vehicle. While Defendant contends
that he noticed a passenger (or someone) waving to the other side
of the lane, like pointing to cross over, this is immaterial to
the ultimate issue of whether he maintained a reasonably safe
distance as required by New Jersey law.
Thus, summary judgment
on the issue of Defendant’s liability is granted.
An accompanying Order will be entered.
Date: January 29, 2018
s/ Karen M. Williams
KAREN M. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
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?