STEPHENS et al V. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ET AL

Filing 91

OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 1/13/16. (gh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARC AND TYRONE STEPHENS,

Civ. No. 2:14-05362 (WJM)

Plaintiffs,
OPINION
v.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs Marc Stephens and Tyrone Stephens filed a 20-count
complaint against an attorney, the City of Englewood, the Englewood Police Department,
and a number of individual police officers. On November 3, 2015, this Court issued an
order entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs now move for
reconsideration of that order. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion will be
DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Court writes primarily for the parties and assumes familiarity with the facts. On
August 26, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against the City of Englewood, the
Englewood Police Department, and a number of police officers (collectively, the
“Englewood Defendants”). The complaint also asserts claims against attorney Nina
Remson and her law firm (collectively, the Remson Defendants). Plaintiffs allege that the
Englewood Defendants falsely charged Tyrone in connection with an October 31, 2012
robbery (hereinafter, “the October 31 Incident”) that he did not commit. Plaintiffs also
allege that the Remson Defendants committed malpractice when representing Tyrone in a
separate matter unrelated to the October 31 Incident. After taking discovery, all
Defendants moved for summary judgment, and in a November 3, 2015 Order, the Court
granted Defendants’ motions.
In an opinion accompanying its November 3, 2015 Order, the Court explained its
reasons for entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See Stephens v. City of
Englewood, Civ. No. 2:14-05362, 2015 WL 6737022 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2015). It first
explained that the Remson Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because

Plaintiffs never served them with an affidavit of merit. It further concluded that the record
did not support a finding that Plaintiffs were somehow exempted from New Jersey’s
affidavit of merit requirements. With respect to the Englewood Defendants, the Court
explained that the Englewood Police Department had probable cause to arrest Tyrone,
which precluded Tyrone from succeeding on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Similarly,
because the Englewood Police Department possessed sufficient evidence supporting its
decision to charge Tyrone, the Englewood Defendants were also entitled to summary
judgment on Tyrone’s state law claims.
Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of the Court’s November 3, 2015 Order. A
court may grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) only if (1) there has been
an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence has become available since
the court granted the subject motion; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Café by Lou–Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co.,
52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Manifest injustice pertains to situations where a court
overlooks some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it. See In re Rose,
No. 06–1818, 2007 WL 2533894, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug.30, 2007). In this case, Plaintiffs
argument appears to be that reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error of law. For
the reasons stated below, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position.
With respect to the Remson Defendants, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate why they
should be exempted from New Jersey’s affidavit of merit requirement, which requires a
plaintiff to show “that the complaint is meritorious by obtaining an affidavit from an
appropriate licensed expert attesting to the ‘reasonable probability’ of professional
negligence.” Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144, 149-50 (2003)
(citing N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27). Specifically, the record shows that Plaintiffs failed to inform
the Remson Defendants that they required information for the specific purpose of filling
out an affidavit of merit. Scaffidi v. Horvitz, 343 N.J. Super 552, 554 (N.J. Super. Ct.
App. Div. 2001). Moreover, and notwithstanding their bald assertions to the contrary,
Plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence refuting the fact that they already possessed
sufficient information to comply with New Jersey’s affidavit of merit requirement.1
Finally, the Court finds no reason to revisit its determination that the issues presented in
Plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim were sufficiently complex to require the filing of an
affidavit of merit. Palanque v. Lambert-Woolley, 168 N.J. 398, 406 (2001). Consequently,
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration with respect to the Remson Defendants is denied.2
The Court reaches the same conclusion with respect to the Englewood Defendants. In
doing so, the Court will not rehash every argument addressed in the decision accompanying
Most notably, the record shows that Plaintiffs were in possession of Tryone’s case file prior to filing the instant
lawsuit. While Marc asserts that he lost access to his files after his computer was hacked, he presents no evidence
supporting that assertion. Marc’s other claims of document destruction are similarly unsupported.
1

2

The Court similarly rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the affidavit of merit statute is facially unconstitutional.

its November 3, 2015 Order. Suffice to say, the record shows that Engelwood police
officers had probable cause to arrest Tyrone. Specifically, the officers had four main pieces
of evidence implicating Tyrone in the October 31 Incident: (1) the alleged photo
identification by Natalia Cortes; (2) the statements made by Justin Evans; (3)
inconsistencies in testimony regarding Tyrone’s alibi; and (4) the statement Tyrone
allegedly made to Jaquan Graham while in a holding cell. Stephens, 2015 WL 6737022,
at *6. In the face of these facts, Plaintiffs now appear to conjure new theories in support
of their claims, e.g., that the Englewood Defendants falsified sworn statements so that they
could bring charges against Tyrone. Even assuming that Plaintiffs raised such allegations
in their opposition to summary judgment, they are nonetheless unsupported by anything in
the record. Consequently, the Court will not reconsider its determination that the
Englewood Detectives cannot be held civilly liable for charging Tyrone in connection with
the October 31 Incident.
II.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. An
appropriate order accompanies this decision.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: January 13th, 2016