PALMER-CARRI v. MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE CONDO REGENCY MGMT. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant Township of Maplewood's 12 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the claims against it be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 5/8/14. (gmd, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 13-4373 (KM)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
MAPLEWOOD VILLAGE CONDO
REGENCY MANAGEMENT and
TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD,
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendant Township
of Maplewood (the “Township”), through its counsel, Weiner Lesniak LLP, on a
motion [ECF No. 12] to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P.
12(b) (1) or 12(b) (6); and the Plaintiff having filed no response to the motion; the
Court rules as follows:
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the moving party bears the burden of showing
despite taking the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as
true, making all inferences in plaintiff’s favor, and construing a pro se plaintiff’s
allegations more liberally than lawyer-drafted pleadings, the plaintiff has failed
to fulfill her obligation to state the “grounds of [her] ‘entitlement to relief” and
to set forth factual allegations sufficient to make such a claim of entitlement
“plausible on its face.” E.g., Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570
(2007). Indeed, a plaintiff must “plead factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 556). Thus, in reviewing the well-pleaded factual allegations and assuming
their veracity, this Court must “determine whether they plausibly give rise to
an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion directed to the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction, the Court again views the complaint in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiffs and reviews the factual allegations to determine whether it
appears jurisdiction may be exercised, e.g. Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.
Supp. 2d 424, 437-38 (D.N.J. 1999); Bennett v. Atlantic City, 288 F. Supp. 2d
675, 678-680 (D.N.J. 2003), or whether the claims “‘clearly appear to be
immaterial and made solely for the purposes of obtaining jurisdiction’ or [arel
‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”’ Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220
F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff has alleged, as to the Township, that its police department and
volunteer fire department “illegally monitored and viewed” her within her home
“so that [a] person or persons entering [her home] unit can enter and leave
without being caught,” and has stated as causes of action against the township
1) harass[ment] within the township, 2) mortgage fraud, 3) tax fraud, 3) bank
fraud, and 4) police discrimination! court discrimination.
The complaint does not cite any federal statute or Constitutional
provision. The claims that might potentially constitute federal law causes of
action, namely, the claims of fraud and discrimination, are not accompanied by
any factual allegations tending to make such claims plausible on their face,
inasmuch as the sole factual allegation against the Township is that its police
and fire department are monitoring and viewing Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims
which may potentially constitute federal law causes of action lack allegations
sufficient to make them anything more than “wholly insubstantial” and
IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, this 8th day of May, 2014,
ORDERED that Defendant Township of Maplewood’s Motion to Dismiss
is GRANTED and the claims against it be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
KEVIN MCNULTY, 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?