KARTERON v. ONE STOP CAREER CENTER et al
Filing
21
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 5/18/18. n.m.(dd, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
BIANCA MADELANE KARTERON,
1:17-cv-08904-NLH-JS
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
ANTHONY CHIESA
manager of One Stop Center,
et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
BIANCA MADELANE KARTERON
57 NIXON AVE
BRIDGETON, NJ 08302
Appearing pro se
AIMEE BLENNER
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
25 MARKET STREET
POX BOX 112
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff, Bianca Madelane Karteron,
appearing pro se, filed a complaint against the New Jersey
Department of Labor and several other individuals alleging that
her various constitutional and state law rights were violated
when Plaintiff lost her job, utilized Defendants’ vocational
assistance programs, and could not secure new employment. 1
Previously in March 2015, Plaintiff filed a New Jersey
state court complaint against the same Defendants.
That case
was dismissed at the trial level, affirmed by the appellate
division, and the N.J. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s petition
for certification on May 11, 2017.
See Karteron v. New Jersey
Department of Human Services, Office of Licensing, 2017 WL
1955190, at *1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017); Karteron v. New
Jersey Department of Human Services, 170 A.3d 342, 343 (N.J.
2017).
In this case, at the same time she filed an amended
complaint on November 7, 2017 (Docket No. 6), Plaintiff filed a
motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 7).
Her filing appears
to be solely a copy of her petition for certification to the
N.J. Supreme Court in her state court case.
(Docket No. 7-1.)
Under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 56(a), a party may move
for summary judgment, identifying each claim, or the part of
each claim, on which summary judgment is sought.
“The court
shall grant summary judgment 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.”
1
Fed. R. Civ. P.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2
56(a).
This District’s Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) requires that on
motions for summary judgment the moving party shall provide the
Court with a statement of all material facts not in dispute.
Civ. R. 56.1(a).
L.
These facts shall be set forth in “separately
numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other documents
submitted in support of the motion.”
L. Civ. R. 56.1(a).
The
purpose of the Rule 56.1 statement is for the parties to
identify the facts relevant to the pending motion so the Court
may determine whether a genuine dispute exists without having to
first engage in a lengthy and timely review of the record.
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. v. Kavalek, 2011 WL 111417, at *2
(D.N.J. 2011).
The Rule specifically provides that a motion
unaccompanied by “a statement of material facts not in dispute
shall be dismissed.”
L. Civ. R. 56.1(a); see also Kee v. Camden
County, 2007 WL 1038828, at * 4 (D.N.J. 2007) (“A moving party's
failure to comply with Rule 56.1 is itself sufficient to deny
its motion”); Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 9 F.
Supp. 2d 460, 476 (D.N.J. 1998) (“This failure to comply with
the Local Civil Rule would by itself suffice to deny
[defendant's] motion for summary judgment.”).
Plaintiff may not simply rely on her arguments in her
state court certification petition to support a motion for
3
summary judgment in this Court.
Rather, she must demonstrate in
this forum that there are no material factual disputes to be
resolved and that she is entitled to judgment on her claims in
this case as a matter of law.
She has not even attempted to
articulate how she meets that standard.
Plaintiff’s summary
judgment motion also clearly fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1.
Consequently, on procedural and substantive grounds,
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be denied. 2
An
appropriate Order will be entered.
Date:
May 18, 2018
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
2
It appears that Defendants did not receive notice of
Plaintiff’s complaint until she filed her amended complaint on
November 7, 2017, and legal representation for Defendants was
not established until November 30, 2017. (Docket No. 8 at 2.)
Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion, and
instead, after receiving an extension of time to respond to
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Defendants timely filed a motion
to dismiss on January 22, 2018. (Docket No. 9, 11.) That
motion is still being briefed, as Plaintiff recently requested,
and was granted, an extension until May 18, 2018 to file an
additional response to Defendants’ motion. (Docket No. 20.)
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?