Friedman v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 16 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | A-37 September Term 2018,081093,A-81 September Term 2018 |
| Citation | 242 N.J. 449,231 A.3d 719 |
| Parties | Jaime FRIEDMAN ; Karen Banks ; Karen Barno; Pei-Ling Cuiffo; Melissa Current; Linda Cusick; Kathleen D'Angiollio; Dipti Desai; Sharon Hunt; Pamela Hurley ; Monique Jacques ; Julianne Kelly; Meredith Kobstad; Melanie Lehman; Marie D. McMahon; Leyda J. Montalvo; Nan Nguyen ; Sophia Pennant; Ana Rivera ; Michele Sellnow; Randee Beth Soffer; Cindy Trabb; Nicole Beim; Mary Lou Burt; Patricia McEvoy; Colleen O'Reilly ; Minwatti Ramsaroop; Tina Rogers ; Pamela Cook, Executrix of the Estate of Fannie Woods, Deceased; and Diane Van Schoick, Plaintiffs, and Ellen Arendt; Benita C. Benjamin; Laura Dandorph; Jennifer DiMilia; Tina Galloway; Janice Goslin; Lori Gray; Suniti Haridas; Sharonda M. Hogans; Eleanor Hunter; Maxine Kennedy; Stella Lee; Eleni C. Michael; Ann M. Oslin; Michele Pfeiffer; Alysia Sachau; Kalpana Shah ; Angela Sims ; Tracey Taylor; Christine Vigilotti; Ashley Watson; Donna Watson; Nettie White ; Kelly Williams; Natasha Johnson ; Diane Lanzafama; Grazyna LeBron; Carol Molinari; Nelita Ponte; and Kimberly Bryant, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Teodoro MARTINEZ, Defendant, and I&G Garden State, LLC, Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc., and LaSalle Investment Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and CRS Facility Services, LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Ruben Sabillon, Jamar Sailor, and Planned Security Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants, and Planned Companies d/b/a Planned Building Services, Inc.; Planned Lifestyle Services, Inc. and Clean, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand, PLC; ING North America Insurance Corporation; Kratos d/b/a Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.; Kratos Public Safety & Security Solutions, Inc.; Kratos Technologies, LLC; and Geoffrey Consulting Services, LLC, Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
William J. Buckley argued the cause for appellants I&G Garden State, LLC, Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc., and LaSalle Investment Management, Inc. (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, attorneys; Thomas J. Cotton, Florham Park, on the briefs).
Jeffrey S. Mandel argued the cause for appellants Ruben Sabillon, Jamar Sailor, and Planned Security Services, Inc. (Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Mandel, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Mandel, Millburn, on the brief).
Franklin P. Solomon argued the cause for respondents Ellen Arendt, Benita C. Benjamin, Laura Dandorph, Jennifer DiMilia, Tina Galloway, Janice Goslin, Lori Gray, Suniti Haridas, Sharonda M. Hogans, Eleanor Hunter, Maxine Kennedy, Stella Lee, Eleni C. Michael, Ann M. Oslin, Michele Pfeiffer, Alysia Sachau, Kalpana Shah, Angela Sims, Tracey Taylor, Christine Vigilotti, Ashley Watson, Donna Watson, Nettie White, Kelly Williams, Natasha Johnson, Diane Lanzafama, Grazyna LeBron, Carol Molinari, Nelita Ponte and Kimberly Bryant (Solomon Law Firm, Locks Law Firm, and Hill Wallack, attorneys; Franklin P. Solomon, Michael A. Galpern, Cherry Hill, and Suzanne M. Marasco, Princeton, of counsel, and Franklin P. Solomon and Marissa K. Vila, Princeton, on the brief).
CJ Griffin argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; CJ Griffin and Jeanne LoCicero, of counsel and on the brief, and Robyn K. Lym, Roseland, on the brief).
"Intrusion upon seclusion" is a tort that allows individuals whose privacy has been invaded to seek recovery for their injuries. In New Jersey, the tort provides a cause of action against the intentional intrusion, "physical[ ] or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another ... if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (Am. Law Inst. 1977). In this appeal, we consider the history and nature of right to privacy claims as well as the showing needed to withstand a motion for summary judgment.
This case arises out of the discovery, in November 2009, that a janitor at an office building had been hiding video-recording devices in the women's bathrooms and a locker room for a number of months. The devices were portable, and not much is known about when they were concealed, in which restrooms, or for how long. About three hours of footage was recovered, which included graphic recordings of women using a bathroom, and there is evidence that more footage was recorded and deleted.
A group of women who worked in the building filed a lawsuit against the man who made the recordings and others. The women alleged, in part, that the installation of hidden cameras in private places like bathrooms and a locker room intruded upon their seclusion. Roughly half of the sixty plaintiffs identified themselves on the recovered footage. Defendants argued that the women who did not identify themselves on the footage did not show that they had suffered an invasion of privacy and moved for summary judgment against those plaintiffs.
In 2014, the trial court granted the motion and dismissed those plaintiffs from the case. The court held that, in general, an actual recording is not necessary to demonstrate intrusion. But the court found there was no evidence the dismissed plaintiffs had used a restroom while a camera was concealed there.
The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment. The court held that a claim of intrusion upon seclusion can be established through circumstantial evidence and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the continued development of the record with that in mind.
We find that an intrusion on privacy occurs when someone uses a private space where a spying device has been concealed and "the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. To bring a claim, the victim does not have to present direct evidence that she was secretly recorded. She can instead establish a case of intrusion on seclusion based on reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.
Here, however, there was not enough evidence in the summary judgment record to demonstrate, either directly or inferentially, that the plaintiffs who were dismissed used bathrooms with cameras in them during the relevant time period. We therefore find that summary judgment was properly granted, and we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division.
We glean the following facts largely from the record that existed at the time summary judgment was granted in 2014.
Defendant Teodoro Martinez supervised a night cleaning crew at 400 Atrium Drive, a five-story office building in Somerset (Franklin Township). He also cleaned restrooms during the day shift. Counsel for the owner and managers of the building estimated that there are about fifteen women's bathrooms in it.
Martinez worked for CRS Facilities Services, LLC (CRS), which had a contract to provide janitorial services at 400 Atrium Drive. As the night supervisor, Martinez had keys and access to all parts of the building. He concealed cameras in at least some of the women's restrooms and the women's locker room.
ING Institutional Planning Services, Inc. (ING), and other companies rented office space in the building. On November 25, 2009, one of ING's employees discovered a camera in the ceiling of a women's restroom on the third floor.
A police investigation led to Martinez's arrest. Detective Ordel Taylor interviewed Martinez on November 30, 2009, and Martinez admitted that he had placed the camera in the restroom.1 He also revealed that he had hidden three or four cameras in the building and that the recordings from those cameras ranged from two to fifty minutes long. Martinez could not recall when he first installed the cameras. He initially estimated that he had been recording for five months but later admitted it could have been more than a year. Martinez said he watched some of the videos and erased them; he also said he downloaded some of the recordings to his computer and erased some of that footage.
Martinez consented to a search of his home. From the office building and his home, the police recovered cameras, flash drives, and computer and electronic equipment that yielded about three hours of footage of women in a bathroom or in the locker room near the building's first-floor gym.
A grand jury in Somerset County returned an indictment against Martinez that charged him with one count of third-degree invasion of privacy, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b). At some point after his arrest, Martinez fled the country.
In a deposition taken in April 2014 -- after the summary judgment ruling now on appeal -- Detective Taylor estimated that he had identified about fifteen women on the video footage with help from the human resources department of ING. He testified that he did not identify all of the women depicted and did not approach other tenants to enlist their help and try to identify other victims.
On January 25, 2011, a group that eventually included about sixty women who had worked at the office building filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including Martinez; CRS; and related entities I&G Garden State, LLC, the owner of 400 Atrium Drive, and Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc., the building's property manager (collectively, the owner-managers). By the time the sixth amended complaint was filed, plaintiffs had added several defendants including Planned Security Services, Inc., a security company ING hired for its space, along with the two security guards who worked at 400 Atrium Drive (collectively, Planned defendants). The Planned defendants were also named as third-party defendants.
The eleven-count complaint alleged invasion of privacy contrary to N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1, tortious invasion of privacy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress by Martinez; employer liability pursuant to section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, negligent hiring and retention, and negligent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meade v. Twp. of Livingston
...the trial court must ‘draw[ ] all legitimate inferences from the facts in favor of the non-moving party.’ " Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472, 231 A.3d 719 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 480, 139 A.3d 57 (2016) ). The court must "con......
-
Rios v. Meda Pharm., Inc.
...the trial court must ‘draw[ ] all legitimate inferences from the facts in favor of the non-moving party.’ " Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472, 231 A.3d 719 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 480, 139 A.3d 57 (2016) ). The court's functio......
-
Jill Cadre & the Cadre Law Firm, LLC v. Proassurance Cas. Co.
...to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.’ " Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472, 231 A.3d 719 (2020) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146 (1995) ). We owe no deference to the motio......
-
Rozenblit v. Lyles
...any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 471-72, 231 A.3d 719 (2020) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).B.1. We first consider the statutory question raised by the Appellate Division's determinatio......