Pappas v. Township of Galloway

Decision Date27 June 2008
Docket NumberCivil No. 07-4443 (JBS).
Citation565 F.Supp.2d 581
PartiesRalph PAPPAS, Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY, et ah, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq., Lieberman & Blecher, PC, Princeton, NJ, for Plaintiffs.

Guy P. Ryan, Esq., Secare, Delanoy, Martino & Ryan, PC, Toms River, NJ, for Defendants, Township of Galloway and Rick Roesch.

Kathrine G. Motley-Hunt, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants, New Jersey Pinelands Commission and Charles M. Horner.

Anthony Pagano, Esq., Atlantic County Department of Law, Atlantic City, NJ, for Defendants, Atlantic County Division of Public Health and Carol Giuzo.

OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants —various state, county, and municipal entities and three of their employees —violated federal and state law by refusing to issue Plaintiff certain permits and certificates that he has sought in order to build on and occupy a plot of land located in Galloway Township, New Jersey. Presently before the Court are the State Defendants' motion to dismiss [Docket Item 7]; Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his Complaint [Docket Item 10]; the County and Township Defendants' motions for summary judgment [Docket Items 15 and 16]; and`Plaintiff's cross-motion to`dismiss the Complaint without prejudice [Docket Item 18]. As the Court explains below, it will grant the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, deny Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint, grant Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice his claims against the County and Township Defendants, and deny the County and Township Defendants' motions for summary judgment as moot.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

The facts as set forth in the Complaint are as follows. At the center of this dispute is a piece of property located in Galloway Township, New Jersey (the "property"). (Compl.¶. 17 Plaintiff purchased the property in 1985 from William H. Smith, who, before selling the property to Plaintiff, had received permission from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission (the "Pinelands Commission" or "Commission") to construct a single-family residence with a septic system on the property. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-22.) In 1985, Plaintiff submitted a septic system application to the Atlantic County Division of Public Health (the "ACDPH"), which was approved on July 23, 1985. (Id. at ¶ 23.) In 1986, Plaintiff sought and received building permits from the Township of Galloway (the "Township") for the construction of a home on the property. (Id. at ¶ 25.)

In 1988, Plaintiff discovered that his septic system had been installed incorrectly, but was informed by the ACDPH that "it would not approve a replacement system because of a change in the law." (Id. at ¶ 27.) Plaintiff complained to an unspecified ACDPH employee, who, according to Plaintiff "warned Plaintiff that she would get even with Plaintiff because she had a good friend at the Pinelands Commission and they would `take care of him.'"1 (Id. at ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges that this unspecified employee then contacted the Pinelands Commission and "improperly alleged that there were ordinances being violated on Plaintiff's property." (Id. at ¶ 29.)

According to Plaintiff, the Pinelands Commission has since been on "a witch-hunt making Plaintiff's life impossible." (Id. at ¶ 30.) The "witch-hunt" cited in Plaintiff's Complaint presumably refers to litigation that the Pinelands Commission commenced against Plaintiff in New Jersey state court in 2001, after the Commission discovered that Plaintiff had apparently conducted unauthorized development on freshwater wetlands in violation of the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 to-58, and the Comprehensive Management Plan, N.J.S.A. 7:50-1 to-10:16. (Hunt Cert. ¶ 2.) In 2003, Judge George Seltzer granted the Pinelands Commission's motion for summary judgment, but stayed his order requiring the removal of the offending structures to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to apply to the Commission for a waiver. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff applied for such a waiver, and in a letter dated May 2, 2006, Defendant Horner, the Commission's Director, denied Plaintiff's application. (Id. at ¶ 5.) At Plaintiff's request, the Commission reviewed Director Horner's decision, and on May 11, 2007, it upheld the denial of Plaintiff's waiver request. (Id. at ¶ 7; Hunt Cert. Ex. A.)

Plaintiff has appealed the Commission's resolution denying his waiver request to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on July 5, 2007. (Hunt Cert ¶ 8, Ex. B.) Plaintiff's appeal is still pending before that court. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on September 17, 2007 [Docket Item 1]. The Complaint names as Defendants the Commission; its Director, Charles Horner, in his official capacity; the ACDPH; an ACDPH employee, Carol Giuzio, in her official capacity; the Township of Galloway; and Rick Roesch, the Department Head of the Township's Construction Office, in his official capacity. In Count One of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' denial of the permits he has sought violated his "Constitutional and Statutory rights," in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in Count Two, he alleges that the permit denials "constitute violations of Plaintiff's Constitutional and Statutory rights, which are violations of New Jersey State's Constitution." (Compl.¶¶ 43, 46.)

The Commission and Defendant Horner moved to dismiss, which Plaintiff opposed by filing a cross-motion to amend his Complaint. The County and Township Defendants subsequently filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not oppose these motions, but instead filed a motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice.

II. DISCUSSION
A. State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
1. Standard for Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has noted that this Court's jurisdiction is limited:

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, see Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-137, 112 S.Ct. 1076, 117 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986), which is not to be expanded by judicial decree, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951). It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. 8, 4 Dall. 8, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799), and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936).

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994).

Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may be "facial" or "factual." Facial attacks challenge the sufficiency of the Complaint's allegations, so a court adjudicating a facial attack must accept those allegations as true. Emerson Elec. Co. v. Le Carbone Lorraine, 500 F.Supp.2d 437, 443 (D.N.J.2007). As with a motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R. Civ. P., the Court ruling on a facial 12(b)(1) challenge "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint," Erickson v. Pardus, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007), and determine whether they "state a legal claim," Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1990). The Court must "`determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.'" Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n. 7 (3d Cir.2002)).

By contrast, factual attacks allow the Court to look beyond the allegations of the Complaint and do not require the Court to presume Plaintiffs' allegations are true.

[A] trial court considering a factual attack accords plaintiff's allegations no presumption of truth. In a factual attack, the court must weigh the evidence relating to jurisdiction, with discretion to allow affidavits, documents, and even limited evidentiary hearings. In Cestonaro v. United States, 211 F.3d 749 (3d Cir.2000), we said, "Because the government's challenge to the District Court's jurisdiction was a factual one under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), we are not confined to the allegations in the complaint (nor was the District Court) and can look beyond the pleadings to decide factual matters relating to jurisdiction." Id. at 752 (citation omitted).

Turicentro v. Am. Airlines, 303 F.3d 293, 300 n. 4 (3d Cir.2002) (citations omitted). In "factual" Rule 12(b)(1) attacks on jurisdiction,

no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims. Moreover, the plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist.

Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. and Loan, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977). Further, "the court [is] not confined to allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, but [may] consider affidavits, depositions, and testimony to resolve factual issues bearing on jurisdiction." Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir.1997).

The State Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint raises both facial challenges, in the form of Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Berthesi v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation, 246 F.Supp.2d 434, 437 (E.D.Pa.2003), and factual challenges, in the form of Younger abstention. See Carter v. Doyle, 95 F.Supp.2d 851, 856 n. 8 (N.D.Ill.2000).

2. Claims Against Pinelands Commission —Sovereign Immunity

The Pinelands Commission argues, and the Court agrees,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Muhammad v. Department of Corrections, Civil No. 05-4999 (JBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • November 12, 2008
    ...from suit in federal court filed by one of its own citizens, irrespective of the type of relief sought," Pappas v. Township of Galloway, 565 F.Supp.2d 581, 586-87 (D.N.J.2008) (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99-100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984)), Plain......
  • Ingram v. Tenn. Dep't of Health, Case No. 3:17-cv-01565
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 29, 2019
    ...than Ingram's complaint and is therefore better construed as a factual attack on this Court's jurisdiction. See Pappas v. Twp. of Galloway, 565 F. Supp. 2d 581, 586 (D.N.J. 2008) (treating a Younger abstention argument as a factual attack). 4. The court in Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, rais......
  • Harris v. Adams Cnty. Domestic Relations, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-02074
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • March 10, 2015
    ...the federal plaintiff 'cannot adequately assert [his] claims because of an unavailable or biased state forum." Pappas v. Twp. of Galloway, 565 F. Supp. 2d 581, 590 (D.N.J. 2008) (citing Safe Haven Sober Houses, LLC v. City of Boston, 517 F.Supp.2d 557, 562-63 (D.Mass.2007) (citing Dombrowsk......
  • Nellom v. Del. Cnty. Domestic Relations Section, CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1229
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • November 18, 2015
    ...“allegations of bias are limited to the alleged 'vendetta' of the state [and] county defendants in this case.” Pappas v. Township of Galloway , 565 F.Supp.2d 581, 590 (D.N.J.2008). Further, Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of any “extraordinary circumstances” under the second excepti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT