Bell v. Maplewood
| Decision Date | 30 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-cv-12980 (BRM) (JSA),2:20-cv-2504 (BRM) (JSA) |
| Parties | RUPERT CALVIN BELL and KYLE T. NELSON, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, et al., Defendants. RUPERT CALVIN BELL and KYLE T. NELSON, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Before this Court are two Motions to Dismiss in the following cases (1) Bell, et al. v. Township of Maplewood, et al. Civ. A. No. 19-12980 (“Bell I”) and (2) Bell, et al. v. Township of Maplewood, et al., Civ A. No. 20-2504 (“Bell II”).[1] The first Motion to Dismiss was filed in Bell I by Defendants Township of Maplewood (the “Township”), Nancy Adams (“Adams”), Sonia Alves-Viveiros (“Alves-Viveiros”), Victor DeLuca (“DeLuca”), Dean DeLucia (“DeLucia”), [2]Gregory Lembrick (“Lembrick”), Joseph Manning (“Manning”), and Frank McGehee (“McGehee”) (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Bell I, ECF No. 56.) Plaintiffs Rupert Calvin Bell (“Bell”) and Kyle T. Nelson (“Nelson”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) opposed (Bell I, ECF No. 57), and Defendants replied (Bell I, ECF No. 60). The second Motion to Dismiss was filed in Bell II by Defendants pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Bell II, ECF No. 30.) Plaintiffs opposed (Bell II, ECF No. 35), and Defendants replied (Bell II, ECF No. 33). Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the Motions and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause shown, the Court sua sponte CONSOLIDATES the Bell I and Bell II cases and GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (Bell I, ECF No. 56; Bell II, ECF No. 30.)
This matter has a tortured and complicated procedural history that encompasses two separately filed complaints. For the purposes of clarity, the Court will address that history first.
On May 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Bell I Complaint (the “Bell I Original Complaint”) against the Township, DeLuca, Alves-Viveiros, Adams, DeLucia, Lembrick, McGehee, and unknown individuals (the “Bell I Defendants”). (See generally Bell I, ECF No. 1.) The Bell I Original Complaint set forth the following causes of action: (1) violations of Article I, Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 7, and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution; (2) violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988; (3) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:9-6; (4) violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:6-2(c); (5) violations of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:1-2, 10:5.4, 10:5-1, 10:5-2(f), and 10:5-12(a), (d), (e), and (f); and (6) violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (See generally Id. at 18-29.) On August 6, 2019, the Bell I Defendants moved for an extension of time to file their answer or otherwise respond to the Bell I Original Complaint, as well as for sanctions against Plaintiffs. (Bell I, ECF No. 5.) On August 12 and 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed requests for an entry of default against the Bell I Defendants. (Bell I, ECF Nos. 6, 9.) On August 23, 2019, the Court entered an Order granting the Bell I Defendants' request for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond, denying their request for the imposition of sanctions, and denying as moot Plaintiffs' requests for an entry of default. (Bell I, ECF No. 11.)
On September 17, 2019, the Bell I Defendants filed a Motion to Partially Dismiss the Bell I Original Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Bell I, ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs opposed (Bell I, ECF No. 15), and the Bell I Defendants replied (Bell I, ECF No. 18). On October 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants. (Bell I, ECF No. 21.) However, on October 22, 2019, the Honorable Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J. entered an Order outlining the deficiencies in Plaintiffs' amended complaint and instructed Plaintiffs to submit a proper motion to amend and accompanying amended complaint by November 1, 2019.[3] (Bell I, ECF No. 22.)
On November 4, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement and Amend their Complaint. (Bell I, ECF No. 23.) The Bell I Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' Motion (Bell I, ECF No. 26.) On November 20, 2019, Judge Dickson held “it remains unclear what changes Plaintiffs seek to make to their original Complaint.” (Bell I, ECF No. 27 at 2.) Unable to discern such changes, Judge Dickson held “the Court and the parties cannot effectively evaluate the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' proposed amended pleading.” (Id.) Rather than deny Plaintiffs' Motion “solely on procedural grounds, ” Judge Dickson instructed Plaintiffs to refile their Motion, in accordance with Local Civil Rules 7.1 and 15.1, by December 3, 2019. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs' refiling deadline was subsequently extended to January 3, 2020. (Bell I, ECF No. 31.) On January 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed another Motion to Amend their Complaint. (Bell I, ECF No. 32.) The Bell I Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' Motion. (Bell I, ECF No. 33.) On March 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. (Bell I, ECF No. 35.) On March 10, 2020, however, Judge Dickson held the amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and Local Civil Rule 15.1 and, accordingly, struck it from the docket. (Bell I, ECF No. 36.)
On March 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an additional complaint (the “Bell II Original Complaint”) against Defendants under the Bell II case number. (See generally Bell II, ECF No. 1.) The Bell II Original Complaint set forth the same causes of action as the Bell I Original Complaint (see Id. at 34-44), and also set forth: (1) an additional claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against all Defendants except Manning; (2) an additional claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for casting Plaintiffs in a false light; (3) additional claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for interfering with Plaintiffs' beneficial position, false light, and invasion of privacy; and (4) wrongful termination (id. at 44-65). On March 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed, as of right, an Amended Complaint in Bell II (the “Bell II Amended Complaint”), along with a Motion to Consolidate the Bell I and Bell II cases. (Bell II, ECF No. 5.) The Bell II Amended Complaint set forth the same causes of action as the Bell II Original Complaint, and also set forth additional state law causes of action for disparate treatment, retaliation, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination. (Bell II, ECF No. 5 at 66-86.)
Also on March 18, 2020, in Bell I, Plaintiffs filed a proposed amended complaint (the “Bell I Proposed AC”). (ECF No. 37.) The Bell I Proposed AC set forth the same causes of action as the Bell I Original Complaint, as well as: (1) an additional claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against all Defendants except Manning; (2) an additional claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for casting Plaintiffs in a false light; (3) additional claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for interfering with Plaintiffs' beneficial position, false light, and invasion of privacy; and (4) wrongful termination. (Id. at 44-65.) The Bell I Proposed AC, therefore, is identical to the Bell II Original Complaint. (Compare Bell I, ECF No. 37, with Bell II, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff conceded to this fact during an October 22, 2020 status conference with the Court. (See Bell II, ECF No. 23 at 1.)
In Bell I, Plaintiffs also sought consolidation of the cases. (See Bell I, ECF Nos. 37-4.) In support of consolidation, Plaintiffs asserted “Defendants['] actions were coming so quickly one behind the other, that it became extremely difficult to keep up with them.” (Id. at 2; Bell II, ECF No. 5-3 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs maintained consolidation “was the best procedure to have a clean up-to-date Complaint to include the previous Amendments with the new allegations.” (Id.)[4]
On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed Motions for Default Judgment in both cases. (Bell I, ECF No. 44; Bell II, ECF No. 16.) On October 22, 2020, Judge Dickson held a status conference with the parties. (Bell I, ECF No. 46; Bell II, ECF No. 18.) At the status conference, the parties agreed that a single lawsuit should exist for this dispute. (Bell I, ECF No. 49 at 2; Bell II, ECF No. 23 at 2.) On October 29, 2020, Judge Dickson entered an Order directing Defendants to submit a status letter indicating whether potential statute of limitations issues exist in Bell II that would preclude the consolidation of the cases into one operative complaint. (Id.) The Order also indicated that “should the . . . status letter indicate that a Statute of Limitations issue exists in Bell II, then the Court will convene a hearing to resolve the issue of one operative complaint together with a process for addressing the statute of limitations issue.” (Id.) Finally, the Order denied without prejudice the Motions for Default Judgment in both cases. (Id.) On November 5, 2020, Defendants submitted correspondence to the Court indicating “there may be arguments that claims related to [certain] incidents would be barred on statute of limitations grounds if Bell II became the operative complaint.” (Bell I, ECF No. 50 at 1; Bell II, ECF No. 24 at 1.) It does not appear that a subsequent hearing was conducted to resolve these issues.
On December 22, 2020, Defendants filed identical Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in Bell I and Bell II. (See Bell I, ECF No. 56; Bell II, ECF...
To continue reading
Request your trial