Atlantic Used Auto Parts v. City of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 07 March 1997
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 96-3904.
• Citation: 957 F.Supp. 622
• Parties: ATLANTIC USED AUTO PARTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

957 F.Supp. 622

ATLANTIC USED AUTO PARTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 96-3904.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 7, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

A. Charles Peruto, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Leon A. King, II, Asst. City Solicitor, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

JOYNER, District Judge.

Today we resolve the cross-motions for summary judgment of Plaintiffs and Defendant City of Philadelphia (the "City"). For the following reasons, summary judgment is granted in favor of the City on Plaintiffs' federal claims, the two unknown defendants are dismissed, and the pendent state law claims are remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County.

BACKGROUND

From 1985 to 1992, the City of Philadelphia (the "City") had a salvor's agreement (the "Agreement") with Thomas Venuto ("Venuto") doing business as Atlantic Used Auto Parts ("Atlantic"). Under this Agreement, Atlantic would "tow, take possession, and control the disposition ... of those abandoned vehicles ... to which it [was] directed by the [City's] Police Department." (Agreement, ¶ 1.) Atlantic would then collect a percentage of the fine levied by the state on the abandoned vehicles' owners, as well as a fee for towing and storing the vehicles. (Venuto Dep. at 61-62.) As to those vehicles never claimed, Atlantic could acquire "salvor's title" and then either repair and sell the cars or break them down for parts. Id. at 63. The Agreement, in turn, granted the City the right to inspect Atlantic's operation at any time and required that Atlantic "provide City with such additional information and data as may be required from time to time by Federal, State, or City authorities." (Agreement, ¶ 12.)

On October 10, 1991, members of the Philadelphia Police Department Auto Squad searched Atlantic's lot in accordance with the Agreement. (Venuto Dep. at 8.) On the lot the officers discovered numerous vehicles previously reported as stolen and car parts from which the vehicle identification numbers had been removed. The parties dispute whether Venuto was able to produce documentation establishing that Atlantic was in lawful possession of the vehicles at this time. (See Venuto Dep. at 13-21; City's Resp. to Pls.' Mot. at 1.) It is undisputed, however, that Venuto was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property and related offenses, and Atlantic's lot was closed for five days while the officers conducted a thorough inspection of the premises. The officers ultimately confiscated from the Atlantic lot numerous vehicles, parts and two guns. (Property Receipts Nos. 349936 through 349953, 349955 through 359971, 349979, and 349980; see Pl.'s Mot. Ex. D.) In a subsequent search of the lot on February 13, 1992, the officers confiscated three boxes of business records. (Property Receipt No. 359760; see Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Mot. Ex. E.)

The City's District Attorney's Office initiated the criminal action against Venuto and proceedings continued until, on April 14, 1994, all charges were dismissed. Venuto contends that the charges were dropped after he produced receipts and tow orders for the vehicles in question to Charles Margiotti ("Margiotti"), the Assistant District Attorney handling the matter. (Venuto Dep. at 52-53). In an Affidavit filed in response to Plaintiffs' Motion, however, Margiotti states that neither Venuto nor his attorney ever provided him with any such documentation. (Margiotti Aff. ¶ 5; see Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Mot. Ex. G.) As to why the charges were dismissed, the City states only that it was done "for other reasons." (Def.'s Resp. at 2.)

Following the dismissal of charges, Venuto filed a Petition for the Return of Property (the "Petition") in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas seeking to recover all the property that had been confiscated from Atlantic's lot. On November 9, 1994, upon consideration of the Petition, Judge Joseph I. Papalini issued an order which directed in its entirety as follows:

it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Philadelphia Police Department return to Petitioner all property of whatever nature seized in the above-captioned matter no later than November 15, 1994. It is further ORDERED that the District Attorney is granted leave to retain copies of Petitioner's business records, checkbooks and other relevant business documents.

(Order; see Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. Ex. B.) To date, however, only the business records and one gun have been returned to Venuto. (Venuto Dep. at 52.) According to the City, Venuto was unable to demonstrate a legal right to the vehicles, parts, and the other gun and, thus, these remaining items were destroyed. (Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Mot. at 2).

On April 15, 1996, Plaintiffs instituted the instant action against the City and two unknown individuals identified only as "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" in the Complaint.¹ Plaintiffs seek damages resulting from the City's failure to return the rest of the property confiscated from the Atlantic lot. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that said failure violates their Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seek compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983 for the alleged violations, as well as attorney's fees under § 1988.² Plaintiffs also assert two Pennsylvania claims seeking damages for the lost property and for alleged harm to Venuto's personal and professional reputation. Plaintiffs and the City have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which we decide today.

DISCUSSION

I. The Doe Defendants

Before we reach the motions before the court, we address the status of the putative defendants John Doe and Jane Doe. Plaintiffs use these fictitious names to refer to the unknown individuals who allegedly "watched, guarded, and [ran]" the impound facility where the confiscated property was taken. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 5 and 19.) The Complaint alleges further that Plaintiffs are "unaware if these Defendants are [the City's employees or independent contractors]," but they reserve "the right to amend this Complaint once these facts became known to them." (Complaint, ¶ 19.)

Discovery was completed in this matter on November 5, 1996. Plaintiffs have filed no such motion to amend nor have they attempted to serve any additional defendants with the instant Complaint. Nonetheless, the Doe Defendants remain parties to this action unless and until they are formally dismissed either by stipulation of the parties or by order of this Court. See Howell v. Tribune Entertainment Co., 106 F.3d 215 (7th Cir.1997) ("in the federal judicial system a party becomes a defendant not when he is served but when the complaint against him is filed"); Fed.R.Civ.P. 3. In our Court, fictitious party names may be used "at least until reasonable discovery permits the actual defendants to assume their places." Klingler v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., 738 F.Supp. 898, 910 (E.D.Pa.1990); see also Johnson v. City of Erie, Pa., 834 F.Supp. 873, 878 (W.D.Pa.1993). We agree, however, that "[f]ictitious names must eventually be dismissed, if discovery yields no identities." Scheetz v. Morning Call, Inc., 130 F.R.D. 34, 36 (E.D.Pa.1990). Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows this Court to drop parties on "its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just." Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. We exercise our discretion under this rule to dismiss the two Doe defendants from this action because Plaintiffs have not ascertained their true identities.³

We now turn to our analysis of the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs and the City, the lone defendant remaining in this case.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, reveal no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). Our responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact, but to determine whether there exist any factual issues to be tried. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The presence of "a mere scintilla of evidence" in the nonmovant's favor will not avoid summary judgment. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510). Rather, we will grant summary judgment unless "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.

In making this determination, we must view all of the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 256, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. Once the moving party has met the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must establish the existence of each element of its case. J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1531 (3d Cir.1990) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).

Finally, the mere fact that the parties have filed cross-motions under Rule 56(c) does not mean that the case will necessarily be resolved at the summary judgment stage. The court must consider the motions separately. Each party must still establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. United States v. Hall, 730 F.Supp. 646, 648 (M.D.Pa.1990) (citing Home for Crippled Children v. Prudential Ins. Co., 590 F.Supp. 1490, 1495 (W.D.Pa.1984)).

III. Constitutional Claims

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages against the City pursuant to both 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982 and 1983, and attorneys fees under § 1988. Plaintiffs move for...