SEVERINO v. OPPERMAN et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 13 Deft Borough of Sayreville's Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Deft Gumprecht's Motion for Summary Judgment; that Pltf's Complaint is dismissed; closing case. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 5/30/2014. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM F. SEVERINO, III,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-7843 (MAS) (TJB)
v.

JESSICA OPPERMAN, et al.,

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Borough of Sayreville's ("Borough
Defendant") motion to dismiss (Sayreville's Mot., ECF No. 13; Sayreville's Br., ECF No. 13-1)
and Defendant Gumprecht's (collectively, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment.
(Gumprecht's Mot., ECF No. 14; Gumprecht's Br., ECF No. 14-1.) Plaintiff failed to oppose the
motions. The Court has carefully considered the Defendants' submissions and decided the matter
without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1.
Plaintiffs Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations. "When
reviewing a [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "Rule"] 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute oflimitations
grounds, [a court] must determine whether the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows
that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations." Cito v.
Bridgewater Twp. Police Dep 't, 892 F .2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Bethel v. Jendoco Constr.
Co., 570 F.2d 1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted)). The statute

of limitations for a malicious prosecution claim begins to accrue on the date criminal
proceedings were resolved in the plaintiffs favor. Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 348 (3d Cir.

1989). Here, the Complaint alleges that "At a trail [sic] on December 14, 2010 the 4th Middlesex
County Prosecutor upon motion to dismiss the indictment because the crime alleged never took
place. The plaintiff was found to be not guilty, and the case was therefore determined finally in
the plaintiffs favor." (Compl.

~

22, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs Complaint was filed December 17,

2012, outside of the two-year statute oflimitations. As such, it must be dismissed. 1
Plaintiffs Complaint must also be dismissed pursuant to the Entire Controversy Doctrine,
which requires parties to "present . . . all of their claims and defenses that are related to the
underlying controversy." Cogdell by Cogdell v. Hasp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989). "A
federal court hearing a federal cause of action is bound by New Jersey's Entire Controversy
Doctrine, an aspect of the substantive law of New Jersey." Rycoline Prods. Inc. v. C & W

Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883, 887 (3d Cir. 1997). Plaintiffs Complaint asserts the same malicious
prosecution count previously brought and decided in New Jersey state court. 2 Although the
Plaintiff added new defendants to the present case, the Entire Controversy Doctrine requires a
party to join in an action '"all parties with a material interest in the controversy,' or be forever
barred from bringing a subsequent action involving the same underlying facts." Rycoline at 885

1

Rule 3 provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Rule
5(d)(2)(A) provides that a paper is filed by delivering it to the Clerk. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2)(A).
Plaintiff mailed his Complaint on December 13, 2012 and the Clerk's Office received it on
December 17, 2012. (ECF No. 1-2.) As such, Plaintiffs Complaint was filed outside the statute
of limitations.
2

The malicious prosecution count of Plaintiffs Complaint contains nearly identical allegations
to those in the state court complaint. For example, paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
and 23 in the current Complaint virtually mirror paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 36, 24 and 31,
respectively, in the state court complaint. (ECF No. 13-2.)
2

(citing Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 142 N.J. 280 (1995)). Therefore,
Plaintiffs suit is also precluded based on the Entire Controversy Doctrine. 3
For the reasons stated above, and other good cause shown,
IT IS, on this 30th day of May, 2014, ORDERED that:
1) Defendants' Motions (ECF Nos. 13 & 14) are granted.
2) Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed.
3) The Clerk shall close this case.

s/ Michael A. Shipp
MICHAEL A. SHIPP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

As the Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations and New Jersey's
Entire Controversy Doctrine, the Court does not reach the Borough Defendant's 12(b)(6)
sufficiency arguments.
3