Opinion
1:15-cv-02041-NLH-JS
07-21-2020
MICHAEL CASTRO, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC COUNTY, ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, MULLICA TOWNSHIP, et al., Defendants.
APPEARANCES: DOUGLAS L. CODY CODY & CODY, ESQS. 653 WHITE HORSE PIKE HAMMONTON, NJ 08037 MARTIN P. DUFFEY COZEN AND O'CONNOR LIBERTY VIEW BLDG. 457 HADDONFIELD RD SUITE 300 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 On behalf of Plaintiff JAMES T. DUGAN ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW 1333 ATLANTIC AVENUE 8TH FLOOR ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401 On behalf of Atlantic County Defendants ROBERT J. MCGUIRE STEPHEN RALPH TUCKER BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 116 TRENTON, NJ 08625 On behalf of State of New Jersey Defendants THOMAS B. REYNOLDS REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C. 750 ROUTE 73 SOUTH SUITE 202A MARLTON, NJ 08053 On behalf of Mullica Township Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
APPEARANCES: DOUGLAS L. CODY
CODY & CODY, ESQS.
653 WHITE HORSE PIKE
HAMMONTON, NJ 08037 MARTIN P. DUFFEY
COZEN AND O'CONNOR
LIBERTY VIEW BLDG.
457 HADDONFIELD RD
SUITE 300
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002
On behalf of Plaintiff JAMES T. DUGAN
ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1333 ATLANTIC AVENUE
8TH FLOOR
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 08401
On behalf of Atlantic County Defendants ROBERT J. MCGUIRE
STEPHEN RALPH TUCKER
BRETT JOSEPH HAROLDSON
NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 116
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of State of New Jersey Defendants THOMAS B. REYNOLDS
REYNOLDS & HORN, P.C.
750 ROUTE 73 SOUTH
SUITE 202A
MARLTON, NJ 08053
On behalf of Mullica Township Defendants HILLMAN , District Judge
WHEREAS, this matter concerns constitutional and state law claims by Plaintiff arising out of his arrests and grand jury indictments for murder and other charges, all of which were ultimately dismissed; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2019, the Mullica Township Defendants and the State of New Jersey Defendants filed motions for summary judgment [157, 159]; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint [161], and on December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint [162]; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, Defendant Joseph Rauch, a detective for the Atlantic County Prosecutors Office, who had been dismissed as a defendant on September 11, 2017 pursuant to Plaintiff's second amended complaint [64], filed his answer [163] to the third amended complaint, which renamed him as a defendant; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2020, Rauch filed a motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claims against him in Plaintiff's third amended complaint [183], which motion is currently pending; but
WHEREAS, the motions for summary judgment by the Mullica Hill Defendants and the other State of New Jersey Defendants relating to Plaintiff's claims against them advanced in Plaintiff's second amended complaint are still pending, but these defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiff's third amended complaint; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the filing of Plaintiff's third amended complaint moots the Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey Defendants' motions relative to the second amended complaint, see Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hospital, 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002) ("An amended complaint supersedes the original version in providing the blueprint for the future course of a lawsuit."); but
WHEREAS, the Court recognizes that the substance of the Mullica Hill and State of New Jersey Defendants' motions may not have changed substantively as a result of Plaintiff's third amended complaint;
The Court has not independently compared the 229-page third amended complaint with the 219-page second amended complaint, but it appears from the Court's review of Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which motion was considered by and granted by the Magistrate Judge, the main difference between the two complaints is the renaming of Rauch as a defendant. The Court leaves it to the parties to indicate whether Rauch's addition as a defendant, or any other change in the third amended complaint, affects their arguments presented in their summary judgment motions.
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this 21st day of July, 2020
ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment by the Mullica Hill Defendants [157] and the State of New Jersey Defendants [159] concerning Plaintiff's claims in his second amended complaint be, and the same hereby are, DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 15 days, these Defendants may (1) file their answers to Plaintiff's third amended complaint, or (2) file a letter on the docket stating that they seek summary judgment in their favor on the claims against them in Plaintiff's third amended complaint, and that they rely upon their prior submissions, and if Defendants choose this option, Defendants shall indicate whether and how any claims in Plaintiff's third amended complaint affect their requests for relief, or (3) file new motions for summary judgment relating to Plaintiff's third amended complaint; and it is finally
The Court recognizes that a party may file a motion for summary judgment in response to a complaint rather than file an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) ("Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery."). The Court leaves it to Defendants' discretion on how they wish to proceed, including the option of not seeking summary judgment at this time. It does not appear that Defendant Atlantic County, which is named in the third amended complaint, has filed an answer or otherwise responded to the third amended complaint.
ORDERED that after Defendants have complied with the Court's Order, Plaintiff shall respond similarly with regard to his oppositions to Defendants' summary judgment motions.
This Order does not impact Defendant Rauch's motion for summar judgment, which has just concluded briefing, as he filed an answer to Plaintiff's third amended complaint and then filed his summary judgment motion relative to the third amended complaint. --------
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey