REINA v. TOWNSHIP OF UNION et al
OPINION and ORDER denying 105 Motion to Vacate the Court's Order of 11/20/13 for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 6/30/15. (gh, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TOWNSHIP OF UNION, WILLIAM SHERIDAN :
Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
Civil Action No. 13-659 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff Imelda Reina’s motion to vacate this
Court’s Order entered on November 20, 2013. For the reasons stated below, the motion to
vacate will be denied.
In the Order entered on November 20, 2013, this Court granted the motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint by Defendant the Township of Union (the “Township”), and dismissed the
Amended Complaint against the Township with prejudice. Plaintiff how seeks to vacate that
Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
In brief, Plaintiff argues that the Court should vacate the Order of dismissal because of
newly-discovered evidence. The gist of the newly-discovered evidence is the testimony of
Defendant William Sheridan (“Sheridan”) that he did not receive any sexual harassment training
from the Township. Plaintiff contends that this provides sufficient factual support to make
plausible a Monell claim against the Township for failure to train Sheridan. It does not. The
Supreme Court has stated: “our first inquiry in any case alleging municipal liability under § 1983
is the question whether there is a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the
alleged constitutional deprivation.” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989).
Plaintiff has not pointed to any facts which suggest a direct causal link between failure to
provide sexual harassment training to a housing inspector and an episode of sexual harassment.
Housing inspectors do not need special training in order to know that they should avoid sexual
contact with property owners. The motion to vacate will be denied.
For the same reason, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint will
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 30th day of June, 2015
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Court’s Order of November 20, 2013
and for leave to amend the Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 105) is DENIED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
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?