Geissler v. City of Atl. City

• Decision Date: 28 July 2016
• Docket Number: Civil No. 16-792 (JBS/AMD)
• Citation: 198 F.Supp.3d 389
• Parties: Lisa GEISSLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Atlantic City Police Department, Atlantic City Police Officer Darrell Catanio, Marina District Finance Company, LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

198 F.Supp.3d 389

Lisa GEISSLER, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Atlantic City Police Department, Atlantic City Police Officer Darrell Catanio, Marina District Finance Company, LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, Defendants.

Civil No. 16-792 (JBS/AMD)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

Signed July 28, 2016

Jon R. Skolnick, Esq., Jenntyng Chern, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF JON RORY SKOLNICK, 100 Morris Avenue, Suite 101, Springfield, NJ 07081, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Tracy L. Riley, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF RILEY & RILEY, The Washington House, 100 High Street, Suite 302, Mount Holly, NJ 08060, Attorney for Defendants City of Atlantic City, Atlantic City Police Department, and Atlantic City Police Officer Darrell Catanio.

OPINION

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lisa Geissler alleges in this action that while she was a registered guest of the Borgata Hotel and Casino & Spa in Atlantic City in October of 2014, she was "wrongfully and falsely" accused by Borgata employees of stealing bottles of wine and subsequently "wrongfully and falsely arrested and charged" with defiant trespass by a police officer with the Atlantic City Police Department. Plaintiff directs this suit against the City of Atlantic City, the Atlantic City Police Department ("ACPD"), Atlantic City Police Officer Darrell Catanio ("Officer Catanio") and the Marina District Finance Company, LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa ("Borgata"), and alleges constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New Jersey State Constitution, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, in addition to several state tort claims.

Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss by the City of Atlantic City, the ACPD and Officer Catanio (collectively, the "City Defendants"), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the City Defendants' motion.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court recites the allegations as they are laid out in Plaintiff's Complaint. [Docket Item 1.]¹ For purposes of this motion, the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true.

On October 17, 2014,² Plaintiff Lisa Geissler was a registered guest of the Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa. (Compl. ¶ 9.) That evening, Plaintiff was in the Borgata's Lounge when, according to Plaintiff, Borgata employees wrongfully and falsely accused Plaintiff of stealing bottles of wine and demanded that she leave the Borgata's premises. (Id.¶ 10.)

While forcibly escorting Plaintiff to her room in the Borgata to gather her belongings, Borgata employees reported to Defendant ACPD that Plaintiff was trespassing on the Borgata's premises. (Id.¶¶ 11-12.) Defendant Officer Darrell Catanio of the ACDP responded to the Borgata employees' report and proceeded to the Borgata. (Id.¶ 13.) Upon his arrival, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Catanio wrongfully and falsely arrested and charged Plaintiff with defiant trespass under Complaint S 2014 5018. (Id.¶ 14; Def. Br. Ex. B [Docket Item 5-5].) According to the Complaint, the charge was subsequently dismissed on April 7, 2015 because it "lacked any legal bases." (Id.¶ 15.) Plaintiff filed a Tort Claims Notice with the City of Atlantic City on June 2, 2015. (Def. Br. Ex. B [Docket Item 5-5].) On February 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a seven-count Complaint, naming as defendants the City of Atlantic City, the ACPD, and Officer Catanio (together, the "City Defendants"), as well as the Borgata. [Docket Item 1.]

Against the City Defendants only, the Complaint asserts constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count One) and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (Count Two). (Compl. ¶¶ 16-22.) Against the Borgata, the Complaint asserts a state law claim of defamation (Count Four). The Complaint additionally asserts state law claims against all Defendants for malicious prosecution (Count Three), negligence (Count Five), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count Six) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count Seven). (Id.¶¶ 23-27, 31-38.)

The City Defendants have now filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss all claims against them. [Docket Item 5.] They argue that the constitutional claims asserted in Counts One and Two must be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that would give rise to municipal liability. (Def. Br. 4-6.) They also argue that the ACPD is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action. (Id. at 4.) Finally, the City Defendants contend that the state law claims against them in Counts Three, Five, Six, and Seven should be dismissed because (1) Plaintiff filed an untimely Notice of Tort Claim; and (2) Plaintiff's Complaint lacks sufficient facts to properly state a claim for relief.³ (Id. at 5-10.)

In her opposition [Docket Item 8], Plaintiff maintains that the City Defendants' motion should be denied because she pled sufficient facts against Officer Catanio to state a claim for relief. (Pl. Br. 2-3.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the Tort Claims Notice she filed was timely and that none of her tort claims should therefore be dismissed. (Id. at 3-4.)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam).

A motion to dismiss may only be granted if a court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to set forth fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests that make such a claim plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Although the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations, it may disregard any legal conclusions in the complaint. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210–11 (3d Cir.2009). A plaintiff should plead sufficient facts to "raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, and "[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

The Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Constitutional Claims Against the City of Atlantic City and the Atlantic City Police Department (Counts One & Two)

In Counts One and Two, Plaintiff asserts federal and state constitutional claims against the City Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the City Defendants, acting under color of state law, violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "incarcerat[ing]" Plaintiff and causing her to "suffer[ ] the loss of her freedom." (Compl. ¶ 19.)

Defendants seek to dismiss the claims against the City of Atlantic City and the Atlantic City Police Department, advancing two theories. First, they argue that a municipal police department is not a proper defendant in a case under § 1983. (Def. Br. 4.) Second, they contend that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts required to impose municipal liability under § 1983. (Id. at 4-6.)

The New Jersey Civil Rights Act was modeled after § 1983 and is interpreted analogously therewith in this District. Petit v. New Jersey, No. 09–3735, 2011 WL 1325614, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2011) ; see also Catlett v. New Jersey State Police, No. 12–153, 2013 WL 2181273, at *5 (D.N.J. May 20, 2013) (Simandle, J.) (stating that New Jersey courts interpret the New Jersey Civil Rights Act as analogous to § 1983 ) (citing Ingram v. Twp. of Deptford, 911 F.Supp.2d 289, 297–98 (D.N.J.2012) ). Therefore, the Court will address the § 1983 claims contained in Count One of the Complaint concurrently with the claims contained in Count Two.

1. The ACPD is Not a Proper Defendant

The Court agrees with Defendants that the ACPD should be dismissed from Counts One and Two because a municipal police department is not a proper defendant in a case under § 1983 and analogous state law. (Def. Br. 4.)

It is well established in this Circuit that courts "treat the municipality and its police department as a single entity for purposes of section 1983 liability." Bonenberger v. Plymouth Twp., 132 F.3d 20, 25 n. 4 (3d Cir.1997) ; see also Catlett, 2013 WL 2181273, at *4 (stating that a municipality and a police department are to be treated as a single entity for § 1983 claims). "[P]olice departments cannot be sued alongside municipalities because a police department is merely an administrative arm of the municipality itself." Hernandez v. Borough of Palisades Park Police Dep't, 58 Fed.Appx. 909, 912 (3d Cir.2003). For this reason, when a § 1983 action has been brought against a municipality and a police department, the police department must be dismissed, as "it is to the municipality that any liability must flow." Benjamin v. East Orange Police Dep't, 937 F.Supp.2d 582, 590 (D.N.J.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, the ACPD is an administrative arm of the City of Atlantic City and is not a proper defendant. The Court will therefore dismiss both Counts against the ACPD.

2. Municipal Liability of the City of Atlantic City

The City Defendants argue that Counts One and Two against the City of Atlantic City should be dismissed because Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege a policy, practice, or custom, which are necessary to sustain a § 1983 action or an analogous state-law action against a municipality. (Def. Br. 4-6.) The Court finds the City Defendants' argument persuasive.

In M...