Cuevas v. City of Jersey City
| Docket Number | Civil Action 20-17555 (SDW)(AME) |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | RYAN CUEVAS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before this Court are cross-motions for summary judgment brought by Plaintiff Ryan Cuevas (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant City of Jersey City (“Defendant”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56. (D.E. 48, 49.) Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This opinion is issued without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78. For the reasons stated herein Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment (D.E. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (D.E. 49) is DENIED.
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff's claims that Defendant, through the Jersey City Municipal Court (“JCMC”), discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), by failing to provide him with an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter at multiple court hearings. (See generally D.E. 1.) As a result, Plaintiff-a deaf individual who communicates primarily in ASL-was unable to resolve a wrongly issued parking ticket, and thus was prohibited from driving, for nearly eight months. (D.E. 48-3 ¶¶ 1-2, 26, 34, 61.) The following events preceded the instant suit.
At 8:04 p.m. on August 22, 2019, Plaintiff was wrongly issued a ticket (the “Ticket”) for parking his car in a bus lane, which was prohibited only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (D.E. 49-2 ¶ 24; D.E. 48-11 at 2.) The Ticket was accompanied by a summons directing Plaintiff to appear at an in-person hearing at JCMC.[2] (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 26; D.E. 48-11 at 2.) Just days before that hearing, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (“NJMVC”) informed Plaintiff in a letter dated January 17, 2020, that it was suspending his registration and driving privileges because of a separate infraction-his failure to present proof of liability insurance. (Id. ¶ 40.) Although Plaintiff promptly resolved the liability-insurance issue,[3] the NJMVC refused to reinstate his driving privileges until JCMC adjudicated the Ticket. (Id. ¶ 43; D.E. 51-1 ¶ 16.) While his license was suspended, Plaintiff could not drive and thus was incapable of earning income from driving. (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 70.) The policies and proceedings surrounding the adjudication of Plaintiff's Ticket are the main subjects of this litigation.
JCMC holds multiple court sessions every weekday, and among other proceedings, it adjudicates parking tickets. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 13.) At JCMC, persons who do not require interpretive services typically can resolve parking tickets during their first or second appearance in court. (Id. ¶ 13.) In addition, if a person who does not require interpretive services wishes to expedite the trial process, “most of the time the [presiding] judge will take [the case] to trial right away to get it adjudicated and resolved immediately.” (Id. ¶ 14.)
In contrast, JCMC holds court sessions on one day per month for persons who request an interpreter. (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 15.) That day-typically the first Wednesday of the month-is called “interpreter day.”[4] (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 15.) Pursuant to the Interpreter Day Policy, a person who needs interpretive services is not automatically provided an interpreter on an interpreter day; rather, he or she first must attend an initial appearance before a judge to specifically request one. (Id. ¶¶ 1621.) Thereafter, JCMC staff will process the person's request and adjourn his or her hearing to a future interpreter day on which the requested interpreter may be provided. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18, 21; D.E. 49-2 ¶ 41.) Such adjournments are not always to the nearest interpreter day, (D.E. 51-1 ¶ 36), and an adjournment to a specific interpreter day does not guarantee that JCMC will supply the relevant interpreter on that day, (D.E. 48-3 ¶¶ 36, 50, 52). This has been the practice of JCMC for at least 16 years. (Id. ¶ 24.)
On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff contacted JCMC to request the assistance of an ASL interpreter at his then-upcoming hearing.[5] (Id. ¶¶ 28, 31.) JCMC staff denied Plaintiff's request and instead advised him to direct his petition to the judge presiding over his initial court hearing. (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 31.) On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff arrived at JCMC and awaited[6] his initial appearance (id. ¶ 35); however, because no ASL interpreter was present, the presiding judge wrote a note to Plaintiff explaining that the hearing would be adjourned to March 4, 2020, an interpreter day.[7] (D.E. 48-3 ¶¶ 35-37.)
Prior to his March 4, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff twice contacted JCMC staff. First, on February 10, 2020, Plaintiff called JCMC to “get clarification on the January 22 hearing.” (Id. ¶ 47.) Plaintiff was told that the January 22 hearing “was an arraignment date where he had to plead guilty or not.”[8] (Id. ¶ 47.) Later, on February 26, 2020, Plaintiff again contacted JCMC staff to ensure an ASL interpreter would be present at the March 4, 2020 interpreter day. (Id. ¶ 49.) JCMC staff, once again, informed Plaintiff that he could not request an ASL interpreter prior to his hearing. (Id.)
On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff returned to JCMC, expecting that he would be provided an ASL interpreter. (Id. ¶ 50.) After waiting for approximately an hour, Plaintiff was informed via handwritten note that JCMC did not have any ASL interpreters available. (Id. ¶¶ 51-52.) Plaintiff grew “very emotional and really frustrated because of the communication barrier” and because JCMC had again failed to furnish an ASL interpreter. (Id. ¶ 53.) JCMC staff adjourned Plaintiff's hearing to the next interpreter day-April 1, 2020. (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiff's hearing was adjourned several times thereafter.[9] (Id. ¶¶ 55-58.)
Eventually, on August 5, 2020, almost a year after issuance of the Ticket, Plaintiff attended a virtual court hearing at which an ASL interpreter was present. (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 60.) During that hearing, a judge found Plaintiff not guilty of the parking violation: the evidence showed that Plaintiff had received the ticket at 8:04 p.m., but parking was prohibited in the bus lane only from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. (Id. ¶ 61; D.E. 48-11 at 2.) The presiding judge then waived Plaintiff's parking ticket fees and restored his suspended license. (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 62.) After an additional delay, Plaintiff's license was officially restored by the NJMVC on September 15, 2020.[10] (D.E. 48-3 ¶ 64.) It is undisputed that the Ticket could have been resolved on January 22, 2020, if JCMC had provided an ASL interpreter to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 57.)
On December 1, 2020, Plaintiff initiated the instant suit against the State of New Jersey, the Administrative Office of the Courts of New Jersey (together with the State of New Jersey, the ), and the City of Jersey City (“City”). (D.E. 1.) The Complaint alleged the following claims: (1) violations of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; (2) violations of Section 504 of the RA, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and (3) violations of the NJLAD, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:51 et seq. (See generally id.) On May 20, 2021, this Court granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the City's motion to dismiss. (D.E. 21.) On July 14, 2021, the City filed an answer to the Complaint. (D.E. 23.) Following discovery, the parties filed the instant crossmotions for summary judgment. (D.E. 48, 49.) The parties timely completed briefing. (D.E. 4853.)
Summary judgment is appropriate “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 “mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphases in original). A fact is only “material” for purposes of a summary judgment motion if a dispute over that fact “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. at 248. A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The dispute is not genuine if it merely involves “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
The moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be insufficient to permit the nonmoving party to carry its burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S 317, 322-23 (1986). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 28889 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting D.E. v. Cent. Dauphin Sch. Dist., 765 F.3d 260, 268-69 (3d Cir. 2014)) The nonmoving party “must present more than just ‘bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions' to show the existence of a genuine issue.” Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325). If the nonmoving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the...
To continue reading
Request your trial