VALENTI v. MAHER TERMINALS LLC et al
Filing
41
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 7/18/2016. (seb)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANGELO VALENTI,
Civil Action No.: 14-7897 (JLL) (JAD)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
MAHER TERMINALS LLC, PATRICK
CICALESE, SR., PATRICK CICALESE, JR.,
JAMES CICACLESE, JOHN DOES 1-10
(fictitious individuals), and ABC CORPS. 1-10
(fictitious companies),
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
filed by Defendants Maher Terminals LLC, Patrick Cicalese, Sr., Patrick Cicalese, Jr., and James
Cicalese (ECF No. 33) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court has considered the
parties’ submissions and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 7$ of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court hereby incorporates and adopts the factual background as set forth in the Court’s
June 30, 2015 Opinion. (ECF No. 22 at 1-2.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court notes that, in the instant motion, Defendants expand upon the factual background that appears in this
Court’s prior opinion. However, Defendant does so in large part by relying on extraneous documents. (See ECF No.
33-1 (“Mov. Br.”) at 3-6; see also ECF No. 33-2, DeNoia Cert.) for the reasons explained infra, the Court declines
to substantively review these documents at this time.
On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a five-count complaint in this Court alleging (1)
unlawful denial of leave under FMLA, (2) retaliation for exercising rights under FMLA, (3)
violation of the New Jersey Family Leave Act, (4) discrimination due to association with disabled
persons, and (5) civil conspiracy. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”).) Defendants moved to dismiss (ECF
No. 5), but the motion was terminated as moot in light of this Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave
to amend. (ECF No. 12.) Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on March 12,
2015. (ECFN0. 17.)
On June 30, 2015, the Court issued an opinion and order denying the motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 22.) The Court first concluded that the Amended Complaint sufficiently stated claims
for relief under the FMLA and NJFLA. The Court found that Plaintiff had adequately alleged (i)
“continuing violations” sufficient to avoid dismissal under the statute of limitations, and (ii) an
adverse employment action premised on worsened work conditions and opportunities. (Id. at 38.)
Next, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a claim under the NJLAD,
concluding that the Amended Complaint adequately alleged an “associational right” to relief, in
addition to “continuing violations” and retaliation. (Id. at 8-9.) Finally, the Court concluded the
civil conspiracy claim could proceed, since the Plaintiff had removed Maher as one of the
defendants for that cause of action. (Id. at 9.)
Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on July 14, 2015. (ECF No. 24
(“Amd. Compl.”).) On April 15, 2016, after retaining new counsel, Defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), in which they present new evidence and new
arguments not raised in the previous motion to dismiss. (Mov. Br.) Plaintiff filed Opposition to
2
the motion on May 27, 2016 (ECF No. 36 (“Opp. Br.”)) and Defendants replied on June 13,
2016(ECF No. 40. (“Reply Br.”)) The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early
enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(c). “The pleadings are considered to be ‘closed’ after the complaint and answer have been
filed, along with any reply to additional claims asserted in the answer.” Liberty mt ‘1 Underwriters
Canada v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 955 F. Supp. 2d 317, 323 (D.N.J. 2013) (citation omitted). When
a party makes a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the defense of failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court “appl[ies] the same standards as under Rule
12(b)(6).” Tttrbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 93$ F.2d 427, 42$ (3d Cir.1991); see Caprio v.
Healthcare Revenue Recoveiy Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2013).
To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 67$ (2009) (quoting Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twornblv, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007).) “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbat, 556 U.S. at 67$ (citing Twomblv, 550 U.S. at 556.) “The plausibility standard is not akin to
a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id.
To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal in the Third Circuit,
the court must take three steps: first, the court must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead
3
to state a claim; second, the court should identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; finally, where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then detenriine whether they plausibly
give rise to an entitlement for relief. See Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d
Cir. 2016) (citations omitted.) “The defendant bears the burden of showing that no claim has been
presented.” Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc.
v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)).
“In deciding a Rule 1 2(b)(6) motion, a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits
attached to the complaint, matters of the public record, as well as undisputedly authentic
documents if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.” Mayer v. Belichick, 605
F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010.) The Court’s role is not to deteniiine whether the non-moving party
“will ultimately prevail” but whether that party is “entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”
United States ex ret. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 f.3d 295, 302 (3d Cir. 2011.) The
Court’s analysis is a context-specific task requiring the
ANALYSIS
Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on various grounds.
For example,
Defendants argue that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, because the Plaintiff received
FMLA documentation on December 4, 2012, and the statute expired two weeks prior to the filing
of the action. Additionally, Defendants contend that individual defendants Cicalese Sr., Cicalese
Jr., and James Cicalese are not employers under the FMLA, because none of these Defendants had
supervisory authority over the Plaintiff.
Defendants also argue that there was no adverse
employment action taken against Plaintiff, since a change in job assignments would not have
4
dissuaded a reasonable worker from taking a protected action.
Plaintiff first and foremost opposes the motion on grounds that this Court previously denied
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the new arguments and
evidence raised in support of the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings requires the Court
to improperly consider evidence beyond the four corners of the Amended Complaint, and to make
credibility and factual deteniiinations that are more appropriately addressed at the summary
judgment with the benefit of discovery.
The Court shall deny Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because the Court
has already determined that the Amended Complaint sufficiently establishes a plausible claim to
relief, and also because the Court cannot say that the extraneous documents proffered by
Defendants are “integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint,” or that the Amended
Complaint is based on these documents. See In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 184
F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999).
First, as noted, the Court has already determined that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a
plausible entitlement to relief under all five counts alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Court,
therefore, has already resolved that the Amended Complaint states plausible entitlements to relief
sufficient to allow this case to proceed to discovery. The Court declines to revisit the adequacy of
the Amended Complaint under the law of the case doctrine, which directs courts to refrain from
re-deciding issues that were resolved earlier in litigation. Pub. Interest Research Grp. of New
Jersey, Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, 123 F.3d 111, 116 (3d Cir. 1997). For example, in United
Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp.
H. Weinreich Co., the court denied the defendant’s motion to
dismiss, and then the defendant raised affinnative defenses and moved for judgment on the
5
pleadings.
107 F. Supp. 89, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 1952).
There, the court found that a denial of
defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted to be
determinative of defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Id. The opinion in the motion
to dismiss in the present case is determinative of the motion for judgment on the pleadings as well.
The Court disagrees that it would be “an injustice” for the Court to rely on its previous opinion, as
Defendants contend. (See Reply Br. at 4.) Thus, the motion for judgment on pleadings shall be
denied, since the Court has previously determined that the Amended Complaint sufficiently
establishes a plausible entitlement to relief under all five counts.
Second, in support of the instant motion, Defendants ask this Court to review a substantial
amount of extraneous evidence, including a “Master Contract” between United States Maritime
Alliance, Ltd. and International Longshoremen’s Association (“ILA”) and a Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the ILA and New York Shipping Association (“NYSA”). (See DeNoia Cert.)
The Court may only consider these documents if they are “integral to or explicitly relied upon in
the complaint,” or if they are “undisputedly authentic” and form the predicate for the complaint.
See In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 184 F.3d at 287. It is not clear the extent to
which the documents relied upon by Plaintiff are “integral to or explicitly relied upon,” or if and
how the complaint is based on them. Indeed, the Amended Complaint does not describe the terms
of the Master Contract, the CBA, or any of the other extraneous documents. The Court therefore
cannot say that Plaintiffs complaint is “based” on the documents. See Pension Ben. Gitar. Corp.
v. White Consol. Indus., 99$ F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (court considered extraneous purchase
and sale agreement where the claim was based on the agreement, and the complaint described its
contents).
Furthermore, both parties agree that “this entire action hinges upon an alleged
6
conversation in September 2009” between Valenti and Cicalese Sr, which is not reflected in the
extraneous documents. (Mov. Br. at 20;
Opp.
Br. at 9.) Thus, the documents are undoubtedly
relevant, but the Court is not convinced that it is appropriate to substantively consider them at this
time. More to the point, in order to find that Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings,
the Court would need to make determinations of fact and credibility, which are ill-suited to this
early stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court finds that it would be more appropriate to
consider the proffered evidence at summary judgment, when the Court has the benefit of a full
record.
To be clear, the Court has no opinion on whether Plaintiff “will ultimately prevail” on his
claims, but simply finds that the Amended Complaint sufficiently shows a plausible claim to relief
such that Plaintiff is “entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” United States ex ret.
Wilkins, 659 f.3d at 302. Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion and revisit the
arguments and issues raised here by Defendants in due course, when the evidentiary record has
been fleshed out.
CONCLUSION
for the reasons above, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
(ECF No. 33.) An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
DATED: JulyJ, 2016
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?