YOUNG v. CITY OF NEWARK et al

Filing 25

LETTER OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 12/4/17. (cm, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 4, 2017

Wilson D. Antoine, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Corporation Counsel’s Office
Law Department, Civil Litigation
City of Newark
920 Broad Street, Room 316
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Defendants
Cynthia H. Hardaway, Esq.
877 Broad Street, #212
Newark, NJ 07102
Counsel for Plaintiff

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

Young v. City of Newark, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-1668 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Defendant City of Newark’s (“Defendant City”) Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff Jakill Young’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). This Court having considered the parties’ submissions, having reached its
decision without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, for the reasons
discussed below, GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this
matter and, therefore, sets forth only the facts necessary and relevant to its decision. On March
10, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant City and others subsequent to an arrest that
occurred on or about March 11, 2015. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff amended his original complaint on
April 23, 2017. (Dkt. No. 6.) This Court dismissed the Amended Complaint as to all claims

against Defendant City and as to all state tort law claims against Defendant Jerome Ramsey 1 on
August 15, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.) 2 This Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to amend.
(Id.) Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on September 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 17.)
On October 11, 2017, Defendant City filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing that
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was untimely filed. (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiff filed his
opposition on November 5, 2017 and Defendant City replied on November 13, 2017. (Dkt. Nos.
23, 24.)
DISCUSSION
On August 15, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a Second
Amended Complaint in this case. Plaintiff concedes that he failed to do so, filing the revised
complaint a day late on September 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff’s counsel admits that the
filing was late because she “miscount[ed].” (Id.) Although late by only a single day, Plaintiff’s
mistake is costly. The statute of limitations for tort claims and civil rights violations is twoyears. See, e.g., Dique v. N. J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010); Michaels v. State
of N.J., 955 F. Supp. 315, 326 (D.N.J. 1996). The statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims was
tolled when his initial Complaint was filed, however, by failing to amend within the thirty-day
window set forth in this Court’s August 15th Order, Plaintiff lost the protection of the tolling and
his previously dismissed claims are now time-barred. See Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603, 60607 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that a “limitations period is tolled by the filing of a complaint which is
later dismissed without prejudice if the order of dismissal grants leave to amend within a time
certain . . . [but that tolling ends after] the time for amendment has expired”). Plaintiff presents
no justification for, and this Court finds no reason warranting, equitable tolling in this instance.
See Parker v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, 650 F. Supp. 2d 326, 340 (D.N.J. 2009) (noting that
“attorney error, miscalculation . . . or other mistakes . . .” do not give “rise to the extraordinary
circumstances required for equitable tolling”).
Therefore, Defendant City’s motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint will be
granted. All claims against Defendant City and all state law tort claims against Defendant
Ramsey are dismissed with prejudice. Per this Court’s August 15, 2017 Order, constitutional
claims against Defendant Ramsey for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution
may proceed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. An
appropriate order follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

1

Defendant Ramsey died on June 17, 2017 and has been replaced as a defendant by his estate. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17,
19.)
2
This Court permitted constitutional claims against Defendant Ramsey to continue.

2

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.

3