SEVERINO v. BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 5/4/2016. (km)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM F. SEVERINO, III,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 14-103 (MAS) (TJB)
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER, et al.,
Defendants.
SHIPP, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Borough of South River and Cassandra
Garrick's ("Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff William F. Severino, Ill's ("Plaintiff')
Complaint pursuant to New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12.) Plaintiff
filed opposition (ECF No. 16), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 15). The Court has carefully
considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 78.1.
Defendants assert that all of Plaintiffs claims are barred by New Jersey's Entire
Controversy Doctrine. "A federal court hearing a federal cause of action is bound by New Jersey's
Entire Controversy Doctrine, an aspect of the substantive law ofNew Jersey .... " Rycoline Prods.
Inc. v. C & W Unlimited, 109 F.3d 883, 887 (3d Cir. 1997). The New Jersey Supreme Court has
described the doctrine's purpose as threefold: (1) the need for "complete and final disposition of
cases through avoidance of piecemeal decisions; (2) fairness to parties to an action and to others
with a material interest in it; and (3) efficiency and avoidance of waste and delay." Paramount
Aviation Corp. v. Agusta, 178 F.3d 132, 137 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing DiTrolio v. Anti/es, 142 NJ.
253, 267 (1995)). The doctrine "compels the parties, when possible, to bring all claims relevant
to the underlying controversy in one legal action. When the court finds that a claim not joined
under the original action falls within the scope of the doctrine, that claim is barred." Coleman v.
Chase Home Fin., LLC, 446 F. App'x 469, 471 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing N.J. Ct. R. 4:30A). "New
Jersey courts have held that the primary consideration in determining if successive claims are part
of the same controversy is whether the claims 'arise from related facts or from the same transaction
or series of transactions."' Id. at 471-72 (quoting DiTrolio, 142 N.J. at 267).
On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County, against the Borough of South River, Cassandra Garrick, and the South River
Municipal Court seeking relief for: violation of his constitutional rights to due process, equal
protection, and speedy trial; being denied access to the courts; and abuse of process. (Certification
of John R. Parker ("Parker Cert."), Ex. A 1 ("State Court Compl.")
ifif 1-2, ECF No. 10-5.)
Specifically, in the state-court complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in May 2012 he was pulled over
and given a ticket in the Borough of Sayreville by a Borough of South River police officer. (State
Court Compl. if 10.) After he pled not guilty to the ticket, Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on
June 23, 2012, and subsequently incarcerated by the Borough of Sayreville. (Id.
ifif 11-14.) While
incarcerated, Plaintiff alleges that Cassandra Garrick, as the Court administrator for South River
Municipal Court, issued a warrant for his arrest for contempt of court related to his May 2012
ticket. (Id.
if 16.) The remaining factual allegations in Plaintiffs state-court complaint relate to
Plaintiffs alleged requests for discovery and a trial date for the May 2012 ticket and the
1
Defendants request that this Court take judicial notice of the state-court complaint and orders.
Plaintiff does not object. Therefore, this Court will take judicial notice of the state-court
documents that Defendants attached to their motion. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Sands v. McCormick,
502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007).
2
corresponding responses by Defendants.
(Id ,-r,-r 17-24.)
Based on these alleged actions of
Cassandra Garrick and the Borough of South River, Plaintiff sought compensatory and injunctive
relief. On June 21, 2013, the state-court complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and on December
9, 2013, Plaintiffs appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Parker Cert., Exs. B-C, ECF
No. 10-5.)
On December 20, 2013 2, Plaintiff filed the Complaint sub judice against Defendants under
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, and state laws, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights to due
process, equal protection, and speedy trial; being denied access to the courts and discovery; abuse
of process; and retaliatory actions. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that on May 4, 2012, he was pulled over by a Borough of South River police officer and
issued a ticket, to which he pled not guilty. (Compl. ,-r,-r 11-12.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that
he was arrested by the Borough of Sayreville on June 23, 2012. (Id ,-r 15.) In his Complaint,
Plaintiff sets forth his interactions with the Borough of South River and Cassandra Garrick
regarding his not guilty plea and requests for discovery related to his May 2012 ticket. (Id
ilil 13-
14, 17-26.)
Severino argues that the Entire Controversy Doctrine does not apply because his Complaint
"only deals with events that occurred after the dismissal of the prior lawsuit and up to the filing of
this one." (Pl.'s Opp'n Br. 1, ECF No. 16.) The only dates alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint after
the dismissal of the state-court complaint are in July and August 2013, while the state court case
was on appeal. (Compl. ,-r,-r 27-30.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in July 2013 Cassandra
Garrick responded to Plaintiffs correspondence addressing issues from the lawsuit and that on
2
The Complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on December 20, 2013, but was not filed on
the docket with Plaintiffs in forma pauperis application until January 7, 2014. (ECF No. 1.)
3
August 8, 2013, Plaintiff turned himself in on the illegal warrant issued by Cassandra Garrick. (Id.
~~
27-28.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he sent correspondence to "the warden" on August
25, 2013, "to address the fact of weather [sic] plaintiff was illegally released by the County Jail."
(Compl.
~
30.)
After reviewing the two complaints, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff. The current action
stems from the May 2012 ticket by the Borough of South River police officers and Plaintiffs
subsequent communications with Cassandra Garrick in pleading guilty and attempting to obtain
discovery and set a trial date. Plaintiffs inclusion of a few dates in his Complaint related to his
continued interactions with Defendants during his appeal of the state-court action does not shield
him from the Entire Controversy Doctrine. Instead, New Jersey's Entire Controversy Doctrine
clearly applies to this matter because the two actions arise from the same sequence of events,
stemming from the May 2012 ticket.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. An order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
MIC~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May
t/-, 2016
4
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?