Colombo v. Bd. of Educ. for the Clifton Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11-00785 (CCC) |
| Parties | DAWN COLOMBO Plaintiff, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE CLIFTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE CLIFTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, in their official capacity, CLIFTON HIGH SCHOOL, & JIMMIE WARREN in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This matter has come before the Court on motion by Defendant Jimmie Warren ("Warren"), who moves to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of the criminal charges against him.1 For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Warren's motion to stay this proceeding is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Dawn Colombo ("Colombo") brings this suit against Defendants Board of Education for the Clifton School District and the members of the Board of Education in their official capacity (jointly, "Board Defendants"), Clifton High School, and Jimmie Warren, in hisofficial capacity, for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. (Compl. ¶ 1). Colombo is the mother of two children who were students at Clifton High School at the time these events took place. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 44). Plaintiff's daughter is identified as "N.C." and her son, who was a minor at the time of the events at issue, is identified as "B.C." Defendant Warren was the principal of Clifton High School until he retired on April 1, 2011. (Compl. ¶ 9, Def. Br. 3).
According to Colombo, Warren engaged in a "continuing pattern of extremely inappropriate, unwelcome, harassing, and sexually suggestive communications with Plaintiff." (Compl. ¶ 17). Colombo claims that Warren made sexually suggestive comments to her, asked her to perform various sex acts, exposed his penis to her, touched her breasts, and arranged a meeting in a hotel room with her. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-40). She contends that Warren offered to help her son, who was frequently in trouble at school, and to promote him to the next grade level, if she would perform sexual acts with Warren. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10). She further alleges that Warren refused to lift a suspension imposed on B.C. because she rejected his sexual advances. (Compl. ¶ 42). Colombo claims that her daughter has been harassed and ridiculed by other students as a result of Warren's actions towards Colombo. (Compl. ¶ 44). Colombo claims that the Board Defendants had notice of Warren's actions, but did not rectify the situation, thereby ratifying Warren's conduct. (Compl. ¶ 25).
According to the Complaint, Warren has been charged with multiple criminal offenses included multiple counts of lewdness, sexual contact and aggravated sexual contact, criminal coercion, and luring and/or enticing. (Compl. ¶ 45). The criminal matter is being investigated by the Passaic County Prosecutor's Office, the Clifton Police Department, and potentially otheragencies. (Id.) Plaintiff brings a wide variety of claims related to Warren's conduct, including, violations of the following rights: equal protection, freedom of association, right to petition, "thorough and efficient" education, and substantive due process, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985. (Compl. ¶¶ 46-65, 77-86). Plaintiff also brings claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, the New Jersey Constitution, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-76, 87-104).
It is well-settled that Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (citing Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. U.S., 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)). "In the exercise of its sound discretion, a court may hold one lawsuit in abeyance to abide the outcome of another which may substantially affect it or be dispositive of the issues." Bechtel Corp. v. Laborers' International Union, 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d. Cir. 1976). However, "it is well settled that before a stay may be issued, the [movant] must demonstrate 'a clear case of hardship or inequity,' if there is 'even a fair possibility' that the stay would work damage on another party." Gold v. Johns-Mansville Sales Corp., 723 F.2d 1068, 1075-76 (3d Cir. 1983) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255)).
"A stay of a civil case where there are pending criminal proceedings is not constitutionally required, however, it may be warranted in certain circumstances." Walsh Sec, Inc. v. Cristo Prop. Mgmt., Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523, 526 (D.N.J. 1998). In deciding whether to stay a civil case pending the resolution of a criminal case, courts consider many factors,including "1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal and civil cases overlap; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the Plaintiff's interest in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by a delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on defendants; 5) the interests of the court; and 6) the public interest." Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. "However, each case must be evaluated individually . . . [and] it is still possible to obtain a stay . . . if the Government is conducting an active parallel criminal investigation." Id.
Plaintiff argues that the Walsh factors do not apply in the instant case because Plaintiff has sued Warren in his official capacity, as principal of Clifton High School, while the criminal indictment is against him in his individual capacity. (PI. Br. 6). As such, Plaintiff contends that her claims against Warren should be treated as though they were brought against a government entity. (PI. Br. 6); see McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 369 (3d Cir. 2005) (). In support of her argument, Plaintiff cites to Forrest v. Corzine, 757 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D.N.J. 2010), in which an arrestee brought action against the City of Camden and Camden police officers for violations of his civil rights. Forrest, 757 F. Supp. 2d at 474-75. The City of Camden moved to stay the action because the police officers in question refused to participate in discovery on the matter while they were the subjects of a parallel criminal investigation. Id. at 474. Judge Schneider denied the motion and found that the Walsh factors did not apply because the City of Camden was not itself the subject of a related criminal investigation. Id. at 479. Moreover, Camden's Fifth Amendment rights were not at issue. Id. at 477.
The case here differs from Forrest because unlike the City of Camden, Jimmie Warren is both a defendant in this law suit as well as the subject of a criminal investigation and indictment. (See Def. Reply Br. 9). As such, his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is at issue. Therefore, the Court will apply the Walsh factors in determining whether to grant a stay of the civil proceedings.
The first Walsh factor requires the court to examine whether the criminal and civil proceedings overlap. Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. "The similarity of issues has been termed 'the most important issue at the threshold' in determining whether or not to grant a stay." Id. (quoting Milton Pollack, Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings, 129 F.R.D. 201, 203 (1989)). Here, the Court finds that the evidence presented demonstrates significant overlap between the civil and criminal cases. Plaintiff claims that Warren engaged in "inappropriate sexual conduct" and that he offered to help her son if she would perform sexual acts. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 17-40, 42). Likewise, the criminal indictment against Warren alleges that he offered "special treatment of students B.C. and N.C. in return for engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with Dawn Colombo, the parent of said students." .
Plaintiff again argues that her claim is based on the alleged inappropriate sexual conduct of Jimmie Warren in his official capacity, while the criminal case is against him in his individual capacity and therefore, the cases and issues do not overlap. (PI. Br. 8). However, as discussed previously, Jimmie Warren is the subject of both the civil case and the criminal investigation. See discussion supra Part III.A. Whether in his official capacity or his individual capacity, the facts, evidence, and issues significantly overlap. Therefore, the Court finds that the first, andmost important factor, weighs in favor of a stay.
As to the second Walsh factor, "the strongest case for a stay of discovery in the civil case occurs during a criminal prosecution after an indictment is returned ... [due to] the potential for self-incrimination." Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. Additionally, the right to a speedy trial reduces the potential for a long delay. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beckham-Easley, No. 01-5530, 2002 WL 31111766, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2002).
Here, Warren has been indicted and he intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (Def. Br. 12). Plaintiff contends that Warren has already waived his Fifth Amendment rights by providing a statement to Detectives for the Clifton Police Department on November 23, 2010. (PI. Br. 8-9). In reply, Defendant argues that Warren did not waive his Fifth Amendment rights when he gave his statement to the police because that statement was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial