Batiz v. Brown, Civil No. 12-581 (RMB/AMD)
| Decision Date | 30 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 12-581 (RMB/AMD) |
| Parties | LUIS BATIZ and CORDELIA CHALLENGER, Plaintiffs, v. M.D. BROWN, D.K. DETULLIO, and JOHN DOES NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE TROOPERS 1-5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APPEARANCES:
Joseph C. Grassi, Esq.
Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, P.C.
2700 Pacific Avenue
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Marvin L. Freeman, Esq.
State of New Jersey
Office of the Attorney General
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
Attorney for Defendants
This matter comes before the Court upon a motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims filed by the defendants, New Jersey State Troopers Daniel Detullio("Detullio") and Michael Brown ("Brown"). For the reasons outlined below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The lawsuit stems from the arrest of Plaintiff Luis Batiz ("Batiz") after he called New Jersey State Troopers to his home to resolve an altercation between a storage company, 1-800-Pack-Rat ("Pack Rat"), and himself. The dispute arose on February 23, 2010, as Pack Rat employees attempted to repossess a storage pod located on Batiz's property. (Defs.' Ex. O at 28:19-29:8, 35:21.) Upon arriving at the scene, Trooper Detullio spoke with both an employee of Pack Rat and Batiz. (Plaintiffs' Resps. to Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ("SOF") at ¶ 2 [Dkt. No. 69-2.])1 The Pack Rat employee told Detullio that Pack Rat sought repossession of the storage pod because it determined Batiz was behind several months on payments, (Defs.' Ex. N at 9:3-10, 9:20-24), though Batiz disputes that he was in arrears. (Defs.'Ex. O at 29:19-21.) Plaintiff sought to have Pack Rat removed as trespassers from his property. (Id. at 29:7-8.)
To prevent the removal of his property, prior to the arrival of Detullio on the scene, Batiz took a device belonging to Pack Rat and essential to the loading of the pod onto Pack Rat's truck (the "lifting bar"). (Defs.' Ex. O at 42:5-9, Ex. N at 14:22-25.) Plaintiff placed the lifting bar away from the immediate area of his dispute with Pack Rat.2 Also in an effort to prevent the removal of the storage pod, Batiz's wife, Plaintiff Cordelia Challenger ("Challenger"), parked her vehicle (a black Honda CRV) in front of Pack Rat's truck to block its exit. (SOF at ¶ 12.)3
Ultimately, after reviewing documents relating to the dispute, (SOF at ¶ 4), Detullio felt the best course of conduct was to permit Plaintiff to remove his personal belongings from the storage pod and allow Pack Rat to leave with it. While Batiz acquiesced to Detullio's solution by removing his belongings from the storage pod so that it could be transported away, he was upset with the resolution of what he felt was a civil dispute by a state trooper. (Defs.' Ex. O at 47:1-11.) Batiz also instructed Challenger to move her car from in front of Pack Rat's truck, which she did. (Defs.' Ex. L at 32:3-10.)
While on the scene, Detullio asked Batiz for his name, date of birth, and social security number at least three times. (SOF at ¶ 10.) Batiz refused to provide any identifying information other than his name to Detullio. (Id.; Defs.' Ex. O at 54:17-20.)4 In his deposition, Batiz later explained that his refusal to provide this information was because he felt that his identifying information was irrelevant to his dispute with Pack Rat. (Defs.' Ex. O at 54:21-24.) Batiz then instructed Detullio to leave his property. (Id. at 56:12-13.) According to Batiz, Detullio did not leave and insisted upon completing his documentation of the incident. (Defs.' Ex. O at 56:14.) Detullio then placed Batiz under arrest, (Defs.' Ex. O at 59:16-17), because, as Batiz testified, he would not provide anyinformation. (Id. at 58:13-59:25.)
At the police station, though Detullio continued to ask Batiz for identifying information, Batiz refused to provide it, including refusing to be fingerprinted or photographed. (Defs.' Ex. O at 66:20-22, 68:18-23, 69:19-21.) Further complicating the identification process, Batiz has never been issued a driver's license in his adult life. (SOF at ¶ 23.)
On that same day, Detullio filed a criminal complaint against Batiz charging him with four offenses: (1) a disorderly persons offense in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:33-2(a)(2); theft in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:20-3(a); obstructing administration of law or other governmental function in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:29-1; and (4) hindering apprehension in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:29-3(a)(7).5 (See Defs.' Ex. C.) A judicial officer found probable cause for the issuance of the complaint. (Id.)
At some point on the same day, Challenger drove herself to the police station in her unregistered Honda CRV.6 (SOF at ¶ 2(Challenger section).) Upon arriving at the precinct, she was asked to provide identifying information about her husband, which she refused to provide. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10.) Challenger was then handcuffed by troopers. (Defs.' Ex. L at 53:18-21; SOF at ¶ 6 (Challenger section).) She was not fingerprinted or photographed. (SOF at ¶ 7 (Challenger section).) In total, the dispatch report indicates that Challenger was at the police station for one hour and one minute. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
After additional attempts to identify Batiz were made by Detullio, (Defs.' Ex. J at 125:18-19), Detullio contacted United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). (Ex. J at 132:20-22.)7 According to Detullio, he was informed by ICE that they had no information on Batiz.8 (Ex. J at 133:6-9.) At some point on February 23, 2010, an immigration detainer was also placed on Batiz by the Department of Homeland Security. (Defs.' Ex. D.) Importantly, Batiz does not allege that Defendantsdirected the filing of the detainer.
On August 4, 2010, Batiz and Challenger appeared for trial in municipal court. (SOF at ¶ 30.) At that trial, during which Detullio appeared as the sole witness, Batiz was convicted of theft, obstruction, and disorderly conduct; he was acquitted of hindering apprehension. (SOF at ¶ 32.) Challenger was acquitted of hindering apprehension. (Defs.' Ex. E at 86:14-18.)9 On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division granted a trial de novo and convicted Batiz of only theft. (Defs.' Ex. G.) On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division overturned that theft conviction, ruling that the record at trial did not contain evidence that Batiz intended to permanently keep the lifting bar and that the affirmative defense of claim of right applied because taking the lifting bar was the only method by which Batiz could protect his property in the pod. (Defs.' Ex. H.) Accordingly, both Challenger and Batiz were acquitted of all charges against them.
On January 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with this Court. [Dkt. No. 1.] After a motion to dismiss and several amendments, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint on June 3, 2013. [Dkt. No. 36.] At the conclusion of discovery,Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on December 23, 2014. [Dkt. No. 64.]
Summary judgment is proper 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). A fact is "material" if it will "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is "genuine" if it could lead a "reasonable jury [to] return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.
When deciding the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, a court's role is not to weigh the evidence; all reasonable "inferences, doubts, and issues of credibility should be resolved against the moving party." Meyer v. Riegel Prods. Corp., 720 F.2d 303, 307 n.2 (3d Cir. 1983). However, a mere "scintilla of evidence," without more, will not give rise to a genuine dispute for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Nevertheless, a court does not have to adopt the version of facts asserted by the nonmoving party if those facts are "utterly discredited by the record [so] that no reasonable jury" could believe them. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 373, 380 (2007). In the face of such evidence, summary judgment is still appropriate "where the record . . . could not lead a rationaltrier of fact to find for the nonmoving party . . . ." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The movant "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Then, "when a properly supported motion for summary judgment [has been] made, the adverse party 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The non-movant's burden is rigorous: it "must point to concrete evidence in the record;" mere allegations, conclusions, conjecture, and speculation will not defeat summary judgment. Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 484 (3d Cir. 1995); Jackson v. Danberg, 594 F.3d 210, 227 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 228 (3d Cir. 2009)) ("[S]peculation and conjecture may not defeat summary judgment.").
Batiz brings claims for false arrest, false imprisonment,malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and conspiracy. Challenger asserts claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and conspiracy. Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Batiz's and...
To continue reading
Request your trial