Harris v. City of Newark

• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Docket Number: A-59 September Term 2020,085028
• Parties: Hamid HARRIS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF NEWARK, Newark Police Department, Detective Donald Stabile, Police Officer Angel Romero, John Does 1-10, ABC Public Entities 1-10, et al., Defendant-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

250 N.J. 294

271 A.3d 1250

Hamid HARRIS, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.CITY OF NEWARK, Newark Police Department, Detective Donald Stabile, Police Officer Angel Romero, John Does 1-10, ABC Public Entities 1-10, et al., Defendant-Appellants.

A-59 September Term 2020

085028

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 30, 2021

Decided March 30, 2022

Emilia Perez, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for appellants (Kenyatta K. Stewart, Corporation Counsel, City of Newark-Department of Law, attorneys; Wilson D. Antoine, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel and on the briefs).

Brooke M. Barnett argued the cause for respondent (BMB Law Firm, attorneys; Brooke M. Barnett, Newark, on the briefs).

Angela Cai, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Angela Cai and Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel and on the brief, and Matthew J. Lynch and Eric Intriago, Deputy Attorneys General, on the brief).

Robert F. Renaud argued the cause for amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys (Renaud DeAppolonio, attorneys; Robert F. Renaud, on the brief).

Karen Thompson argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Karen Thompson, Alexander Shalom, Newark, and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).

J. Remy Green submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae National Police Accountability Project (Cohen & Green, and Pawar Law, attorneys; J. Remy Green, on the brief, and Lauren Bonds, of the Kansas and Texas bars, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE PATTERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The doctrine of qualified immunity "shields law enforcement officers from personal liability for civil rights violations when the officers are acting under color of law in the performance of official duties," unless the officers’ "performance is not objectively reasonable." Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104, 107-08, 117 A.3d 1206 (2015). Qualified immunity can be asserted as a defense against actions brought under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, and federal causes of action for a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Morillo, 222 N.J. at 107-08, 117 A.3d 1206.

In this appeal, we review the Appellate Division's order dismissing the notice of appeal filed by defendants the City of Newark, Detective Donald Stabile, and Police Officer Angel Romero following the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment, in which defendants asserted qualified immunity as a defense to plaintiff Hamid Harris's civil rights claims. Defendants contend that the trial court's order denying summary judgment was a legal determination and should therefore be deemed appealable as of right under Rule 2:2-3(a)(3), in keeping with both New Jersey appellate practice and federal law.

We view the trial court's order in this case to be a decision premised on factual findings as well as legal conclusions, not an exclusively legal determination. We conclude that a trial court's order rejecting as a matter of law a claim of qualified immunity should not be designated as a final order appealable as of right under Rule 2:2-3(a), and that federal law does not require the contrary result. In an NJCRA action, a defendant seeking to challenge a trial court's order denying qualified immunity prior to final judgment must proceed by motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal in accordance with Rules 2:2-4 and 2:5-6.

Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Division's order dismissing defendants’ notice of appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

I.

A.

Plaintiff alleges that Stabile, a Newark Police Department detective, falsely accused him of four armed robberies that were committed in Newark in January 2015 and unlawfully arrested him in connection with those robberies based on an improperly issued arrest warrant.

After the charges against plaintiff were dismissed, he filed this action against defendants. In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserted NJCRA claims against Stabile for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution; an NJCRA claim against Stabile and Romero for civil rights conspiracy; a claim against all defendants for unlawful search and seizure based on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the NJCRA; a common-law claim against all defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and a common-law claim against the City of Newark for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention of police officers based in part on a theory of respondeat superior. Defendants asserted the defense of qualified immunity to plaintiff's claims under the NJCRA.

Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims. After the parties completed discovery, the trial court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion. The court dismissed plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment and the NJCRA for unlawful search and seizure. It also dismissed plaintiff's negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims against the City of Newark to the extent that those claims were based on a theory of respondeat superior.

The trial court rejected defendants’ claim that they were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to plaintiff's NJCRA claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy. It reasoned that because Stabile did not have probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and because Stabile's belief that plaintiff committed the robberies was objectively unreasonable, defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The trial court also denied the City of Newark's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims, to the extent that those claims were not based on a theory of respondeat superior.

Pursuant to Rule 4:49-3, defendants moved for reconsideration of the trial court's decision denying in part their summary judgment claims. In a written opinion, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.

B.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal, asserting that Rule 2:2-3(a)(3) authorized them to appeal as of right the trial court's decision denying qualified immunity. They also moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 2:5-6.

By Order dated September 25, 2020, the Appellate Division ruled that "[t]he appeal is interlocutory as it is not from a final order" and dismissed defendants’ notice of appeal. The appellate court also denied defendants’ motion for leave to appeal.

C.

We granted defendants’ petition for certification. 246 N.J. 231, 249 A.3d 866 (2021).¹ We also granted amicus curiae status to the Attorney General; the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys, jointly represented; the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey; and the National Police Accountability Project.

II.

A.

Defendants urge us to hold that the trial court's decision denying qualified immunity as a matter of law was a legal determination that should be viewed as final for purposes of Rule 2:2-3(a)(3). They argue that it would be inconsistent with our decision in Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home, 182 N.J. 507, 516-18, 867 A.2d 1174 (2005), to rule that an order denying qualified immunity is not appealable as of right. Defendants contend that because a federal district court's legal determination denying qualified immunity is appealable as final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, state court orders denying qualified immunity as a defense to NJCRA claims should also be appealable as of right pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Defendants assert that a ruling denying an appeal as of right in the setting of this appeal would violate the principle of neutrality prescribed in Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911, 918, 117 S.Ct. 1800, 138 L.Ed.2d 108 (1997), and that such a ruling would be preempted by federal law.

B.

Plaintiff contends that the trial court's denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity was not a purely legal determination, but was premised on both legal and factual grounds. He distinguishes this appeal from our decision in Moon on the ground that factual disputes precluded summary judgment in this case. Plaintiff states that in light of the judicial policy against piecemeal review of trial court decisions, an appeal as of right is ordinarily unavailable to a litigant unless the challenged determination is final as to all issues and all parties, and he urges that we refrain from creating an additional exception to that principle for orders denying qualified immunity. He asserts that New Jersey law should continue to treat such decisions as interlocutory orders that may be challenged prior to final judgment only by motion for leave to appeal.

C.

Amicus curiae the Attorney General asserts that, absent a factual dispute that requires a jury determination, we should permit appeals as of right from a denial of qualified immunity, absolute immunity, sovereign immunity, or statutory immunity because those immunities shield public employees and public entities from the burden of defending against civil rights claims as well as relieving those entities from potential liability. The Attorney General argues that allowing direct appeals from purely legal determinations denying qualified immunity would align New Jersey appellate practice with federal law and the decisions of other states’ highest courts.

D.

Amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys urge that we follow federal law and allow appeals as of right from decisions denying qualified immunity pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(3). Amici...