BAILEY v. THE MILLENNIUM GROUP OF DELAWARE et al
Filing
114
OPINION Filed. Signed by Judge Robert Kirsch on 10/23/2023. (jal, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTHONY K BAELEY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 18-1188 (RK) (JBD)
V.
OPINION
THE MILLENIUM GROUP OF
DELAWARE, etal.,
Defendants.
KIRSCH, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Anthony K. Bailey ("Plaintiff). (ECF No. 103.) Upon review of Plaintiff s Motion, the Court has
determined that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Rule 56.1 of the Local Civil Rules, which provide the procedures with which a party seeking
summary judgment must comply. The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's motion and
resolves the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and
Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
is DENIED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff was hired by Millennium Group of Delaware ("Defendant Millennium") in 2014
to work at a facility owned by NRG, Energy, Inc. ("Defendant NRG"). ("Compl.," ECF 1 at 6;
ECF No. 65-2 at 2.) In 2017, Plaintiff was terminated for an alleged breach of security. (ECF 1-1
1 The facts of this case are well-known to the parties and to the Court. The Court therefore provides only
limited background information for the purposes of resolving Plaintiff's pending motion.
at *11.) On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 ("Title VII") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD") against
Defendants NRG and Millennium alleging that they fired him because of his race. (Compl. at 46.)
On September 27, 2019, the Court granted Defendant NRG's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice because Plaintiffs Complaint failed to allege the existence of an employment
relationship. (See ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint alleging
violations of Title VII, the NJLAD, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NWL"). (ECF No. 41.) On July 13, 2020, the Court granted Defendant NRG's Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint, determining that the amended pleadings still did not establish
that an employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant NRG. (ECF No. 51.) On
July 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 52), which the Court denied
on March 12, 2021, (ECFNo. 56). On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff provided notice that he had appealed
the Court's decision dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendant NRG and denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 61.) On September 21, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit issued a mandate, affirming in part and vacating and remanding in part the Court's
order. (ECF No. 65-2.) The Third Circuit affirmed the Court's decisions as to the alleged violations
of Title VII, the NJLAD, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, but remanded the Court's decision on Plaintiffs
NTWL claim. (Id. at 7-9.) Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his remaining
claim, which is now pending before the Court. (ECF No. 103.)
2 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment does not make clear whether Plaintiff is seeking summary
judgment against just Defendant NRG or against both Defendants to this action. Regardless, the Court's
decision is unchanged.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the Court should grant summary judgment
"if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "The moving party bears the initial
burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. ..." Huang v. BP
Amoco Corp, 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Ctr. 2001). Rule 56 requires that on motion for summary
judgment, "[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support that
assertion by ... citing particular parts of materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(l)(A). The
Local Civil Rules expand upon this requirement, stating that "the movant shall furnish a statement
which sets forth material facts as to which there does not exist a genuine issue, in separately
numbered paragraphs citing to the affidavits and other documents . ..." Local Civ. R. 56.1. The
requirements of the Rules are not superficial. As the Honorable Noel L. Hillman has explained:
Local Civil Rule 56.1 series an important purpose both procedurally
and substantively. It focuses the parties on the facts material to the
dispute. It allows the court, with the help of the parties, to isolate
those facts for the purpose of applying the appropriate legal standard
or controlling precedents. Without compliance with the Rule, the
Court is left to sift through often voluminous submissions in search
of-sometimes in vain-the undisputed material facts.
Owens v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-6663, 2012 WL 6761818, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 31,
20,12); see also Stadler v. Abrams, No. 13-2741, 2017 WL 4407929, at *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2017)
("Procedure is not merely a cosmetic concern. Compliance is a precondition to a court reaching
the merits of an argument, a burden equally and fairly imposed on all parties and one designed to
make the resolution of cases expeditious, coherent, and just."); Collickv. Weeks Marine, Inc., No.
08-5120, 2013 WL 6070035, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2013) ("Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) thus puts the
onus on the parties, rather than the Court, to find evidence of record supporting their respective
arguments." (collecting cases)).
According to Local Civil Rule 56.1, a motion for summary judgment that is
"unaccompanied by a statement of material facts not in dispute shall be dismissed." Local Civ. R.
56.1; see also Any do Int'I Inc. v. Cha, No. 18-5759, 2021 WL 2110338, at *2 (D.N.J. May 25,
2021) (denying summary judgment because the movants' failure to comply with Local Civil Rule
56.1 "made it exceedingly difficult for the Court to discern whether there is a genuine dispute of
material fact. . . ."); Fish Stix Charter Fishing, LLC v. Cure, No. 18-864, 2020 WL 423338, at *5
(D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2020) (denying summary judgment, reasoning that "[c]laimant's Statement of
Material Facts is not a 'statement of material facts not in dispute' under Local Civil Rule 56.1
because it acknowledges that certain facts are both material and in genuine dispute . . . ."); K.J. v.
Greater Egg Harbor Reg'l High Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc., No. 14-0145, 2017 WL 6034144, at *3
(D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2017) (denying summary judgment for failure to comply Rule 56(c)(l) or Local
Civil Rule 56.1, reasoning that the court "cannot adjudicate the matter without reference to the
facts"). Nonetheless, the Third Circuit has counseled that noncompliance with Rule 56.1 "may be
excused where 'the District Court had a clear record of the facts on which to rule/ no prejudice
was caused, and there was substantial compliance with the Rule." Anyclo Int'l Inc., 2021 WL
2110338, at *2 (quoting Par^v. Sec'y U.S. D ep'tof Veterans Affs., 594 F. App'x 747, 751 (3d Cir.
2014)).
In this case, Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel. The Court is obligated to construe pro
se filings liberally. Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013).
Nonetheless, pro se litigants "cannot flout procedural rules—they must abide by the same rules
that apply to all other litigants." Id. at 245; see also id. ("[W]e have never suggested that procedural
rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel." (quoting McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)); Vogt v.
Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment contains a section titled "Statement of Facts."
(See ECF No. 103-1 at 8.) However, this approximately two-page section provides no facts, and
instead states that Plaintiff "relies on the facts as detailed in the accompanying statements as
undisputed Material Facts." (M at 8-10. )3 Rather than provide facts not in dispute, Plaintiff argues
in this section that he qualifies as an employee ofNRG, that the evidence is "100% proof that he
was a "Legal employee ofNRG," and that he is entitled to the "punitive, economic and all damages
for which he is seeking . ..." (Id. at 9.) He contends that NRG has failed to demonstrate that he
was not an NRG employee, that he "suffered damages, financial and otherwise," that NRG has
engaged in "subterfuge" in "supporting their denials and their verifiable false yet devastating
untruth's of Plaintiff's employment status," and that NRG has suffered no damages. (Id. at 9-10.)
This Statement of Facts fails in several respects to comply with Plaintiff s obligations under
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 56.1. First, Plaintiff's
"Statement of Facts" fails to set forth any facts—let alone articulate facts as to which there is no
genuine issue. Second, Plaintiffs brief is not accompanied by any exhibits. A movant may not
simply assert facts and purport them to be undisputed. Rather, the movant must substantiate each
3 Plaintiff seems to suggest that his brief is accompanied by an additional statement of facts but does not
provide a citation as to where such section may be found, nor has the Court identified one.
4 Plaintiff also argues in this section that he is a "real 'Person' as defined in 18 U.SC. 2510(6). . . having
lawful status as a. .. true self-Sovereign, Afro-indigenous Solvent Indigenously, and ancestrally Native of
American, and a free living self-directing being with the capacity of freewill capable of having rights."
(ECF No. 103-1 at 8). 18 U.S.C. § 2510(6) defines "person" for purposes of the Wire Tap Act, see 18
U.S.C. § 2511, and the Court fails to see the relevance of the Wire Tap Act in this employment
discrimination case.
assertion of fact by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record" as described in Rule
56(c)(A)(l) or to "affidavits and other documents submitted in support of the motion" as described
in Local Civil Rule 56.1. Critically, Plaintiffs motion is not supported by appended materials and
is devoid of citations to any record. Third, Plaintiffs Statement of Facts does not include
allegations in separately numbered paragraphs as required by Local Civil Rule 56.1.
Although Plaintiff is pro se and his pleadings must be construed liberally, he is not exempt
from the commandments of the Federal and Local Rules. His failure to comply with these
procedural rules prevents Defendants from effectively responding to his assertions and prevents
the Court from determining whether summary judgment is appropriate. In such cases, a motion for
summary judgment "shall be dismissed." See Local Civil Rule 56.1 (emphasis added). While the
Court may excuse noncompliance with Local Civil Rule 56.1 where the Court has a clear record
of the facts on which to rule, no prejudice is caused, and there is substantial compliance with the
Rule, the Court finds that this is not such a case. Plaintiff's failure to include any facts or append
any exhibits to his motion makes it exceedingly difficult to discern whether there is a genuine
dispute of material fact. Plaintiff, as the movant, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no
genuine dispute of material fact exists, and Plaintiff fails to meet this burden. Accordingly, the
Court finds denial of Plaintiff's motion, without prejudice, appropriate.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without
prejudice. Plaintiff may refile a motion for summary judgment that complies with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1 within thirty (30) days of receiving this Order.
ROBERT KlRSCH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 23, 2023
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?