Wilson v. State of New Jersey et al

First MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

D.N.J.December 21, 2016

- 1 - CHISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman By: Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General (609) 292-6252 Joel.Clymer@lps.state.nj.us IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VICINAGE OF CAMDEN MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM VARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-07915 (RBK-JS) NOTICE OF PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 3 AND 4 OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND BAYSIDE STATE PRISON WITH PREJUDICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 17, 2017, or at such other time as it may please the Court, the undersigned Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of New Jersey, by Deputy Attorney General Joel Clymer appearing for Defendants, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections and Bayside State Prison shall move for entry of an Order partially dismissing Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 55 - 2 - Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendants will rely upon the Brief and Certification of Joel Clymer submitted in support of this Motion. Oral argument is requested in the event this Motion is opposed. A proposed form of Order is submitted herewith. CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY By: /s/ Joel Clymer Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General DATED: December 21, 2016 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VICINAGE OF CAMDEN MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM VARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-07915 (RBK-JS) _________________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND BAYSIDE STATE PRISON’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) _______________________________________________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, Willaim Saraceni, & Daniel Opperman By: Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General (609) 292-6252 Joel.Clymer@lps.state.nj.us Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................2 STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................3 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1) ............................3 LEGAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................4 POINT I: COUNT 3 OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE STATE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ..........................................................................................................................4 POINT II: COUNT 4 OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY WAGE AND HOUR LAW, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56, ET SEQ, SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE STATE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED PERSONS AMENABLE TO SUIT ..............7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................7 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 58 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Page No. Antonelli v. State of New Jersey, 310 F.Supp.2d 700 (D.N.J. 2004) ............................................. 6 Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD, 342 Fed. Appx. 818 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................. 5 Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690 (3d Cir. 1996) ................................................ 3 Chisholm v. McManimon, 275 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2001) ................................................................ 6 Coleman v. Court of Appeals, 132 S. Ct. 1327 (2012) ............................................................... 5, 6 Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000) .............................................. 3, 4 Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406 (3d Cir. 1991) ............................................. 3 Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1977). .................................... 3 Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003) ......................................................... 4, 5 Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (l984) .............................................. 6 Smolow v. Hafer, 353 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Pa. 2005). ................................................................ 3 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) ............................................................................................. 5 State Cases Allen v. Fauver, 167 N.J. 69 (2001) ............................................................................................... 5 Federal Statutes 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.................................................................................................................... 5 29 U.S.C. §2611(2) ......................................................................................................................... 5 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(A)-(D) ....................................................................................................... 5 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D) .............................................................................................................. 6 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2) .................................................................................................................... 5 Federal Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)......................................................................................................... 2, 3, 10 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 59 ii Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)................................................................................................................... 3 State Statutes N.J.S.A. § 30:1B-2 .......................................................................................................................... 7 N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56, et seq. ........................................................................................................ 2, 9 N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56.1...................................................................................................................... 9 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 60 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendants, Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and Bayside State Prison (“BSP) (referred herein collectively as “State Defendants”), move to dismiss Counts 3 and 4 of Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson’s Complaint, in lieu of filing an Answer, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Certification of Joel Clymer, Ex. A, Pl. Compl. ¶¶34-36), violations of the self-care provisions of the FMLA (Certification of Joel Clymer, Ex. A, Pl. Compl. ¶¶37-41), and violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (Certification of Joel Clymer, Ex. A, Pl. Compl. ¶¶42-44). State Defendants removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to Federal Court on October 27, 2016. (See Docket Entry No. 1). Count 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violation of the FMLA self-care provision should be dismissed because State Defendants are entitled to immunity in State and Federal Court. Count 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law should be dismissed because State Defendants are not considered persons under that statute. Thus, State Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Counts 3 and 4 against them in their entirety and with prejudice. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 61 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 Plaintiff is currently an employee of DOC and BSP (Certification of Joel Clymer, Ex. A, Pl. Compl. ¶1). Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey on September 1, 2016. (Certification of Joel Clymer, Ex. A, Pl. Compl.). State Defendants removed Plaintiff’s Complaint to Federal Court on October 27, 2016. (See Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following claims:  Count 1 – Retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination;  Count 2 – Retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;  Count 3 – Violation of the self-care provision of the Family Medical Leave Act;  Count 4 – Violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56(a), et seq. (Ex. A, Pl. Compl. ¶¶34-44). State Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Counts 3 and 4 against them with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 1 Because the procedural history and relevant facts are closely related, they have been consolidated for the convenience of the court. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 62 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1)._______________________________________ State Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If a court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Insofar as Plaintiff asserts claims against the DOC and BSP as State entities, State Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from liability. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 693 n.2 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating that the “Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar which deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction”). The Third Circuit has held that an Eleventh Amendment defense is properly addressed in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) rather than 12(b)(6), “caution[ing] against treating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and reaching the merits of the claims.” Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)). A District Court, in considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), must distinguish between facial and factual challenges to its subject matter jurisdiction. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). “In a facial attack, a defendant argues that the plaintiff did not properly plead jurisdiction . . . [whereas] a ‘factual’ attack asserts that jurisdiction is lacking on the basis of facts outside of the pleadings . . . .” Smolow v. Hafer, 353 F. Supp. 2d 561, 566 (E.D. Pa. 2005). For either category of attack, a plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 63 4 In the instant matter, State Defendants assert that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear counts 3 and 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint because the Eleventh Amendment’s sovereign immunity shields them from liability in State and Federal Court. Thus, a factual analysis is unnecessary because a jurisdictional argument is a facial attack. Although the Court should consider the allegations in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction. Gould Elecs., at 178 (citations omitted). If the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, the respective counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed. LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I COUNT 3 OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE STATE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY_________________________________ The Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq., requires covered employers to provide eligible employees with up to twelve (12) weeks of leave within a twelve-month period: (1) to care for a newborn, adopted or foster child; (2) to care for a spouse, parent, or child who has a serious health condition; or (3) for a personal serious health condition which renders the employee unable to perform his or her work functions. 29 U.S.C. §2611(2), § 2612(a)(1)(A)-(D). The FMLA creates a cause of action for aggrieved employees to seek equitable relief and monetary damages “against any employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2), should that employer "interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of” FMLA rights. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1); see, Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 725 (2003). In Hibbs, the Supreme Court of the United States held that private suits may be brought against the States where the “family-care” provision of the FMLA Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 64 5 is at issue, but did not address whether a suit could be brought if the “self-care” provision was at issue. Hibbs, at 737-40. The FMLA “self-care” provision permits employees to take medical leave for reasons of personal illness or injury. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D) (authorizing leave due to “a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employ[ment].”); see also, Banks v. Court of Common Pleas FJD, 342 Fed. Appx. 818, 819 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). However, the Supreme Court of the United States, “[i]n agreement with every Court of Appeals to have addressed this question,” has held that “suits against States under this provision are barred by the States’ immunity as sovereigns.” Coleman v. Court of Appeals, 132 S. Ct. 1327, 1332 (2012)(emphasis added); see also, Banks, at 819-21. The States’ immunity to suit under the self-care provision of the FMLA arises from the “foundational premise of the federal system that States, as sovereigns, are immune from suits for damages, save as they elect to waive that defense.” Coleman, at 1333 (citations omitted). “As an exception, Congress may abrogate the States’ immunity [. . . ] under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. However, Congress did not validly abrogate the States’ immunity to suit for money damages when it enacted the FMLA’s self-care provision. Id. at 1338. It is well-established that State immunity to suit under a federal law is equally valid whether the suit is brought in Federal or State court. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706,754 (1999) (holding that state courts may not “assume jurisdiction that could not be vested in the federal courts and forms no part of the judicial power of the United States”); see also, Allen v. Fauver, 167 N.J. 69, 73-77 (2001) (citing Alden and holding that the State of New Jersey and its Department of Corrections are immune from suit in both federal and state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act). Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 65 6 “Sovereign immunity is routinely extended to state agencies and state officials acting in their official capacities where it is shown that ‘the state is the real, substantial party in interest.’” Antonelli v. State of New Jersey, 310 F.Supp.2d 700, 714 (D.N.J. 2004) (citations omitted); see also, Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (l984) (immunity from suit extends to "agencies or Department" of the state as well). The key factors in determining whether the state is the “real, substantial party in interest” are set forth in Chisholm v. McManimon, 275 F.3d 315, 323 (3d Cir. 2001) as follows: 1) whether any judgment would be paid from the state treasury; 2) the status of the entity under state law; and 3) the entity’s degree of autonomy. Here, Plaintiff has brought suit against State Defendants under the “self-care” provision of the FMLA. (Ex. A, Clymer Cert., ¶37-41). However, it is abundantly clear that, as a matter of law, DOC is a State agency for purposes of suit, and is therefore immune from suit. Specifically, N.J.S.A. § 30:1B-2 states: There is hereby established in the Executive Branch of the State Government a principal department which shall be known as the Department of Corrections. [N.J.S.A. § 30:1B-2] It is therefore undisputed that Defendant, DOC is an entity of the State of New Jersey, and pursuant to Coleman, Plaintiff is barred from bringing this action for damages against the State and its entities based upon alleged violations of her rights under the “self-care” provision of the FMLA. Further, Defendant, BSP is also entitled to the same immunity as it is a State Prison falling under the purview of the DOC. Therefore, Count 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging a violation of her rights under the “self-care” provision of the FMLA should be dismissed with prejudice because State Defendants Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 66 7 are agencies of the State of New Jersey and are therefore immune to suit under the self-care provision of the FMLA. POINT II COUNT 4 OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY WAGE AND HOUR LAW, N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56, ET SEQ, SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE STATE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED PERSONS AMENABLE TO SUIT_________ The New Jersey Equal Pay Act was adopted in 2014 and although it allows for suits against the agents of an “employer”, it does not include the State within its definition of “employer.” N.J.S.A. § 34:11-56.1. Because this statute does not authorize suit against Defendants, DOC or BSP, Count 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice against same. For the foregoing reasons, Count 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed against State Defendants in its entirety and with prejudice. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant State Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 and 4 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTPOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY By: /s/ Joel Clymer _____________ Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General Dated: December 21, 2016 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-1 Filed 12/21/16 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 67 1 CHISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman By: Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General (609) 292-6252 Joel.Clymer@lps.state.nj.us IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VICINAGE OF CAMDEN MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM VARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-07915 (RBK-JS) CERTIFICATION OF JOEL CLYMER, D.A.G. JOEL CLYMER, of full age, hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. I am employed as a Deputy Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and represent the Defendants, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 68 2 Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman in the above-captioned matter. I am therefore fully familiar with the facts to which I now certify. 2. I submit this Certification in support of a Motion to Dismiss Counts 3 and 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants, State of New Jersey, Department of Corrections and Bayside State Prison, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) with prejudice. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this matter. I certify that the foregoing statements by me are true. I understand that if any of the foregoing statements is willfully false, I am subject to punishment. /s/Joel Clymer Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General Dated: December 21, 2016 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 69 EXHIBIT A Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 70 SHEBELL & SHEBELL, LLC John H. Sanders II, Esq. (ID# 036932001) 655 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 314 Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07702 (T) (732) 663-1122 (F) (732) 663-1144 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Our File No.: 49633 (JHS/cgt) MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUN'IY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELU; WILLIAM V ARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. ! SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAWDMSION CUMBERLAND COUN'IY DOCKET NO. CUM-L-608-16 Civil Action SUMMONS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TO THE DEFENDANT(S) NAMED ABOVE: WILLIAM VARRELL The plaintiff, named above, has filed a lawsuit against you in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The complaint attached to this summons states the basis for this lawsuit. If you dispute this complaint, you or your attorney must file a written answer or motion and proof of service with the deputy clerk of the Superior Court in the county listed above within 35 days from the date you received this summons, not counting the date you received it. (The address of each deputy clerk of the Superior Court is provided.) If the Complaint is one in foreclosure, then you must file your written answer or motion and proof of seiVice with the Clerk of the Superior Court, Hughes Justice Complex, PO Box 971 [CN-971], Trenton, NJ o8625-o971. A filing fee payable to the Clerk of the Superior Court and a completed Case Information Statement (available from the deputy clerk of the Superior Court) must accompany your answer or motion when it is filed. You must also send a copy of your answer or motion to plaintiffs attorney whose name and address appear above, or to plaintiff, if no attorney is named above. A telephone call will not protect your rights; you must file and serve a written answer or motion (with fee of $175.00 [$175.00 for Law Division and $105.00 for Chancery Division] and completed Case Information Statement) if you want the court to hear your defense. If you do not file and serve a written answer or motion within 35 days, the court may enter a judgment against you for the relief plaintiff demands, plus interest and costs of suit. If judgment is entered against you, the Sheriff may seize your money, wages or property to pay all or part of the judgment. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 71 If you cannot afford an attorney, you may call the Legal Services office in the county where you live. A list of these offices is provided. If you do not have an attorney and are not eligible for free legal assistance, you may obtain a referral to an attorney by calling one of the Lawyer Referral Services. A list of these numbers is also provided. ISS/ MICHELLE M. SMITH, Clerk, Superior Court Dated: September 22, 2016 Defendant to be Served: WILLIAM V ARRELL Address for Service: CJO: CENTRAL OFFICE, STUYVESANT AVENUE & WHITI'LESEY ROAD, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 72 Clerk's Addresses: Atlantic County, 1201 Bacharach Blvd., Atlantic City, New Jersey 08330 Bergen County Justice Center, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Burlington County Courts Facility, 49 Rancocas Rd., Mt Holly, NJ 08060 Camden County Hall of Justice, 101 S. 5th Street, Camden, NJ 08103-4001 Cape May County Courthouse, Main Street, Cape May Court House, NJ 08210 Cumberland County Court House, Broad and Fayette Street, Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Essex County Courts Building, 50 W. Market Street, Newark, NJ 07102 Gloucester County Courthouse, 1 N. Broad Street, Woodbury, NJ 08096 Hudson County Administration Bldg., 595 Newark Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306 Hunterdon County Court House, Main Street, Flemington, NJ 08822 Mercer County Court House, PO Box 8068, Trenton, NJ 08650-0068 Middlesex County Court House, 1 Kennedy Square, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 Monmouth County Court House 71 Monument Park, Freehold, NJ 07728 Morris County Court House, PO Box 900, Morristown, NJ 07963-0900 Ocean County Court House, 118 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08754 Passaic County Court House, 77 Hamilton Street, Paterson, NJ 07505-2017 Salem County Court House, 92 Market Street, Salem, NJ 08079 Somerset County Court House, PO Box 3000, Somerville, NJ 08876-1262 Sussex County Court House, 43-4 7 High Street, Newton, NJ 07860 Union County Court House, 2 Broad Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07207 Warren County Court House, 2nd & Hardwick St, Belvidere, NJ 07823 Atlantic County Bergen County Burlington County Camden County Cape May County Cumberland County Essex County Gloucester County Hudson County Hunterdon County Mercer County Middlesex County Monmouth County Morris County Ocean County Passaic County Salem County Somerset County Sussex County Union County Warren County LEGAL AID OFFICES (609) 348-4200 (201) 487-2166 (609) 261-1088 (609) 964-1002 (609) 465-3001 (609) 692-2400 (201) 622-1513 (609) 848-5360 (201) 792-6363 (908) 782-7979 (609) 695-6249 (609) 249-7600 (732) 747-7400 (201) 285-6911 (732) 341-2727 (201) 345-7171 (609) 451-0003 (908) 231-0804 (201) 383-7400 (908) 527-4769 (908) 475-2010 LEGAL SERVICES OFFICES (609) 345-3444 (201) 488-0044 or 692-1011 (609) 261-4862 (609) 464-4520 (609) 463-0313 ( 609) 692-6207 (201) 622-6207 ( 609) 848-4589 (609) 792-2727 (908) 735-2611 (609) 890--6200 (609) 828-0053 (732) 431-5544 (201) 267-5882 (732) 240-3666 (201) 278-9223 (609) 678-8363 (908) 685-2323 (201) 267-5882 (908) 353-4 715 (908) 267-5882 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 73 SHEBELL & SHEBELL, LLC John H. Sanders ll, Esq. (ID# 036932001) 655 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 314 Shrewsbury, ·New Jersey 07702 . (T) (732) 663·1122 (F) (732) 663-1144 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) Our File No.: 49633 UHS/lmp) SUPERIOR COURT OF N J . CUMBERLAND COUNTY • SEP 0 1 2016 REC'D & FILED uuu.CIVIL CAll! m"n"GEMENTO'FFICE MELANIE WILSON, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM V ARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Fictitious Defendant(s), Defendants. i i CUMBERLAND COUNTY . DOCKET NO. CUM-L- {; 0 8" - I (p i Civil Action l i j COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND i i Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, residing within the Township of Millville, County of Cumberland, and State of New Jersey, by way of Complaint against the Defendants herein states: ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS 1. Plaintiff Melanie Wilson, (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff), is a current empioyee of Defendants, -including The New Jersey Department of Corrections (hereinafter referred to as "NJ-DOC"). Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 74 2. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, NJ-DOC, was and currently is a governmental agency subject to the laws of New Jersey, maintaining its address and location on Whittlesey Road, in Trenton, in the State of New Jersey. 3. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, State of New Jersey, was and currently is operating and in direct oversight of the operations of the Defendant NJ-DOC and was an employer of the Plaintiff. 4. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, County of Cumberland, was and currently is operating and in direct oversight of the operations of the Defendant NJ-DOC activities and operations at Defendant Bayside Prison and as was an employer of the Plaintiff. 5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, Bayside State Prison, was and currently is a governmental operated male prison subject to the laws of New Jersey, located in the county of Cumberland, in the State of New Jersey and is also the location where the Plaintiff's workplace is located. 6. For a time period relevant hereto, which ended upon his voluntary departure from the Plaintiff's employer, Defendant, Charles Egbert, was a supervisor of the Plaintiff and/or who ranked above the Plaintiff and also who had direct responsibility for the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendants and/or her workplace environment. 7. For a time period relevant hereto, which ended upon her transfer from the Bayside State Prison, Defendant, Erin Nardelli, was in a superior Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 75 position to the Plaintiff and/or who ranked above the Plaintiff and also who had direct responsibility for the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendants and/or her workplace environment including the investigation of claims and the handling of investigations which had a direct impact upon the working environment of the Plaintiff in which position she had control over the management of the operations directly impacting the Plaintiff's workplace. 8. At all times relevant hereto, William Varrell, was in a superior position to the Plaintiff and/or who ranked above the Plaintiff and also who had direct responsibility for the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendants and/or her workplace environment which had a direct impact upon the working environment of the Plaintiff in which position he had control over the management of the operations directly impacting the. Plaintiff's workplace. 9. At all times relevant hereto, William Saraceni, was in a superior position to the Plaintiff and/ or who ranked above the Plaintiff and also who had direct responsibility for the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendants and/or her workplace environment which had a direct impact upon the working environment of the Plaintiff in which position he had control over the management of the operations directly impacting the Plaintiff's workplace. 10. At all times relevant hereto, Daniel Opperman, was in a superior position to the Plaintiff and/or who ranked above the Plaintiff and also who Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 76 had direct responsibility for the terms and conditions of her employment with the Defendants and/or her workplace environment which had a direct impact upon the working environment of the Plaintiff in which position he had control over the management of the operations directly impacting the Plaintiff's workplace. 11. At all times relevant hereto, the individually named Defendants, Charles Egbert, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman were directly involved with and had direct responsibility for the management and control over the operations aforementioned employer Defendants, all acting individually or collectively to take reprisals against the Plaintiff for her opposition to acts which are and were prohibited by state and/or federal law under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and further that they aided, abetted, incited, compelled or coerced the commission of reprisals against the Plaintiff for her opposition to those prohibited acts, and also other acts of direct discrimination and harassment against the Plaintiff based on her gender which is female. 12. At all times relevant herein, Defendant{s), John/Jane Doe{s), 1- 10, are fictitious names representing unknown parties who, as other employees of the employer Defendants, were present and aware of the alleged acts against the plaintiff and/ or conspired with and/ or willfully ignored the illegal actions with named Defendants in their actions against the Plaintiff, and/or aided, abetted, incited, compelled or coerced the Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 77 commission of reprisals against the Plaintiff for her opposition to those prohibited acts, and also engaged in other acts of direct discrimination and harassment against the Plaintiff based on her gender which is female, and therefore are liable for the injuries suffered. 13. From June 2000, the Defendant employers hired the Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, who, as of 2014 remained employed with the Defendants in the position of "Communications Officer-Secured Facilities". 14. At all times relevant hereto the Plaintiff performed her job duties as a "Communications Officer-Secured Facilities". 15. At all times relevant hereto the Plaintiff's work as a "Communications Officer-Secured Facilities" met the reasonable expectations of her employers. 16. In March 2014, while working for Defendants, the Plaintiff supported and gave statements to the Defendants regarding the sexual harassment complaints of her co-worker Denise DeBellis against a superior at the Defendant employers' workplace, Sargent Harold Shelton. 17. The aforementioned act of supporting·and providing information concerning the sexual harassment claim of a female co-worker was protected activity under state and federal laws and/or under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and/or also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 78 18. It is illegal under state and federal law for any of the named Defendants to engage in retaliation against employees who engage in activity protected under those laws. 19. The Defendant employers failed to have a system in place to protect the Plaintiff from retaliation which was effective, and despite the fact that notice was repeatedly provided by the Plaintiff as soon as June 10, 2014 that she was suffering workplace harassment and intimidation from Supervisory custody staff and co-workers from June 3-5 at Bayside State Prison and thereafter, and despite the fact that she was a cooperating witness in the ongoing investigation into the harassment of her female co- worker by a superior male officer, no appropriate action was taken and the Plaintiff suffered further illegal discrimination, harassment and intimidation. 20. Further acts of illegal workplace harassment continued, which has been ongoing from the events described in the above referenced paragraphs and continue to the present day, included the Plaintiff being called a "SNITCH" by way of a note on her work station and "YOU'LL GET YOURS" as well as other notes, being treated differently and in a hostile manner by her co-workers in an effort to ostracize and isolate her. Again, all of this evidence, including the notes themselves, were provided by the Plaintiff to her superiors following directions and a chain of command that she was instructed by the employer Defendants to follow. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 79 21. Through june and July of 2014, the Plaintiff continued to suffer retaliation, including from the human resources department which improperly categorized the Plaintiff's approved intermittent family leave as sick time, and then charged the Plaintiff with "Chronic or excessive absenteeism" and "failure to follow call off/ call on procedures". The supervisor that charged the Plaintiff explained that she was "'told' to put a packet together", which charges were a part of the ongoing retaliatory action taken against the Plaintiff and were also in violation of her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. sec 2601, et. seq. 22. In July 2014, the Plaintiff was further informed that a letter containing naked pictures of the Plaintiff and a lewd description of her was distributed via regular mail and also via Interoffice Mail of Bayside State Prison to the home of a superior and also to Defendant Nardelli, respectively. At that time, part of Defendant Nardelli's job duties included human resources duties relating to the Plaintiff's reports of retaliation. 23. In August 2014, the Plaintiff received threats directly through Interdepartmental mail including a picture and a note indicating "NEVER RAT ON YOUR FRINEDS AND ALWAYS KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT," and on September 1, 2014 a pink envelope addressed to "Operator Snitch". 24. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff was presented with the envelope and the letter and photos that were sent to a supervisor and demanded by Defendant Nardelli that she immediately provide a Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 80 handwritten responsive statement, and also told that she would not be provided with a copy of the documents. 25. In September 2014, the Plaintiff made additional complaints with the New jersey Equal Employment Division, which investigation was directed by the Defendants, including individual Defendant Nardelli all of whom violated their own policies intentionally, or with substantial certainty that the Plaintiff would be subjected to additional retaliation and for which, against her request, the Plaintiff was interviewed at Bayside State Prison, at which time it is believed that the Plaintiff's co-workers and superiors became aware of her making a complaint and made any anonymity of the complaint impossible to maintain. 26. As a result, the Plaintiff was subjected to additional retaliation. The retaliation included sabotage of her scheduling, harassment from co- workers and superiors. When the Plaintiff suffered a stroke as a result of the extreme and prolonged stress caused by the hostile work environment, the Plaintiff was subjected to further retaliation by Defendant Saraceni who illegally refused to allow her absences to be covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act in 2015. 27. Retaliation continued into 2016, when Defendant Saraceni refused to correct issues related to his illegal denial of family leave. Defendant Saraceni, working in concert with the other retaliating Defendants, created ongoing frank and obvious errors related to the Plaintiff's pay, which they refused to correct upon demand by the Plaintiff, in violation of the New Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 81 Jersey Wage and Hour statute N.J.S.A. 34:11-56(a), et. seq. and refused to grant and or even acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act. 28. Plaintiff filed timely administrative charges of discrimination against the Defendants with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Co~ission (EEOC) and the New Jersey Department of Civil Rights (OCR). 29. The EEOC issued a letter of determination on June 6, 2016, granting the Plaintiff 90 days to file the present lawsuit for her claims. FIRST COUNT NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 30. Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1 through 2 9 above in this Complaint as if more fully set forth herein. 31. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants were Employers and/ or agents of the employer of the Plaintiff and were covered by and subject to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. 32. The conduct of the Defendants, The New Jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New Jersey, Bayside State Prison, Defendants, Charles Egbert, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman, jointly, individually and severally, and the treatment of the Plaintiff, constitutes unlawful discrimination, Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 82 harassment, hostile workplace environment, and retaliatory conduct that represent numerous frank violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et. seq. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, The New Jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New jersey, Bayside State Prison, Defendants, Charles Egbert, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman, jointly, individually and severally, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, demands judgment against the Defendants, The New Jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New Jersey, Bayside State Prison, Charles Egbert, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman, jointly, individually and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, counsel fees, costs of suit and such other relief that the Court deems to be just and equitable. SECOND COUNT TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 34. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation of the First Count of this Complaint, and Allegation paragraphs 1 through 29, as if more fully set forth herein. 35. At all times relevant herein, the Defendants' conduct was in Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 83 direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes unlawful discrimination against the Plaintiff on the basis of her gender illegal and which prohibits retaliation against the Plaintiff for her support of the sexual harassment claim of her co-worker. 36. As a result of Defendant's unlawful, retaliatory conduct, the Plaintiff has and continues to suffer economic damages. Defendants' conduct is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits direct discrimination based on gender and also which prohibits retaliation against employees by employers against employees for supporting the claim of another person who has a claim of workplace sexual harassment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, demands judgment against the pefendants, The New jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New jersey, Bayside State Prison, jointly, individually and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, counsel fees, costs of suit and such other relief that the Court deems to be just and equitable. THIRD COUNT FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 3 7. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation of the First and Second Counts of this Complaint, and Allegation paragraphs 1 through 29, as if more fully set forth herein Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 84 38. The Defendants qualify as an "employer'' as that term is defined in the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4), and that Plaintiff is an "eligible employee" as that term is defined in the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2). 39. Plaintiff should have been granted an "entitlement to leave" as defined in the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2612(1), and that Plaintiff was denied her entitlement to leave as prescribed in FMLA. 40. Defendant employers were responsible for this violation under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a). 41. As a result of Defendant's unlawful, conduct, the Plaintiff has and continues to suffer economic damages including liquidated damages, other losses for wages, salary and benefits, as well as future wages, salary and benefits that the Plaintiff will lose as a result of the Defendants actions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, demands judgment against the Defendants, The New jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New jersey, Bayside State Prison, jointly, individually and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, civil fines, together with pre-judgment interest, counsel fees, costs of suit and such other relief that the Court deems to be just and equitable. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 85 FOURTH COUNT NEW JERSEY WAGE AND HOUR LAW N.J.S.A. 34:11-56(a), ET.SEO. 42. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation of the First through Third Counts of this Complaint, and Allegation paragraphs 1 through 29, as if more fully set forth herein. 43. The actions of the Defendants in failing to pay the Plaintiff wages owed by them to her constitutes violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law N.J.S.A. 34:11-56(a), et. seq. 44. As a result of Defendant's unlawful, conduct, the Plaintiff has and continues to suffer economic damages from lost salary and is likely to continue to lose further salary in the future as a result of this practice of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Melanie Wilson, demands judgment against the Defendants, The New Jersey Department of Corrections, The County of Cumberland, the State of New Jersey, Bayside State Prison, jointly, individually and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, civil fines, together with pre-judgment interest, counsel fees, costs of suit and such other relief that the Court deems to be just and equitable. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all matters herein. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 86 TRIAL DESIGNATION Pursuant toR. 4:5-1, John H. Sanders II, Esq., is hereby designated as trial counsel for the within matter. CERTIFICATION I certify, pursuant toR. 4:5-1, that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action or arbitration proceeding, now or contemplated, and that no other parties should be joined in this action at this time. SHEBELL & SHEBELL, L.L.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Dated: <6,31116 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 87 Appendix XII-Bl CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS) , FOR USE BY CLERKS OFFICE ONLY PAYMENT TYPE: OCK OcG DcA CHG/CKNO. Use for initial Law Division AMOUNT: Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1 :S,.&(c), if information above the black bar is not completed or attorney's signature is not affixed OVERPAYMENT: BATCH NUMBER: AlTORNEY I PROSE NAME John H. Sanders, II, Esq. FIRM NAME (if applicable) Shebell & Shebell OFACE ADDRESS 655 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 314 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 TELEPHONE NUMBER (732) 663-1122 COUNTY OF VENUE Cumberland I?OCKET NUMBER (when available) DOCUMENT TYPE Complaint JURY DEMAND • YES 0 No NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plaintiff) Melanie Wilson, Plaintiff CASE TYPE NUMBER (See reverse side for listing) 618 RELATED CASES PENDING? HURRICANE SANDY RELATED? DYES .NO 0 Yes • No DO YOU ANTICIPATE ADDING ANY PARTIES (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? 0 YES • No CAPTION Wilson v. NJ Department of Corrections, et al. IS THIS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE CASE? 0 YES • NO IF YOU HAVE CHECKED •YES," SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:53 A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW REGARDING YOUR OBUGATION TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT. IF YES, UST DOCKET NUMBERS NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY Qf known) 0 NONE • UNKNOWN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE. CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION DO PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, PAST OR IF YES, IS THAT RELATIONSHIP: RECURRENT RELATIONSHIP? • EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE D FRIEND/NEIGHBOR 0 OTHER (explain) • YES 0 No 0 FAMILIAL 0 BUSINESS DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING PARTY? • YES 0 No USE THIS SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED DISPOSITION [0.~ Do YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY DISABILITY ACCOMMODAnONS? IF YES, PlEASE IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION 0 YES • No WILL AN INTERPRETER BE NEEDED? IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE? 0 YES • No I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the ~ in. accordance with Rule 1 :38-7(b). ATTORNEY SIGNATURE: /% /:/( (/'"' P' Effective12-o7-2015, CN 10517-English page 1 of2 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 88 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS) Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of cas~ type in appropriate space on the reverse side.) Track I • 150 days' discovery 151 NAME CHANGE 175 FORFEITURE 302 TENANCY 399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract. Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction) 502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only) 505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (including declaratory judgment actions) 506 PIP COVERAGE 510 UM or UIM CLAIM {coverage issues only) 511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT 512 LEMON l:AW 801 SUMMARY ACTION 802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (summary action) 999 OTHER (briefly describe nature of action) Track II • 300 days• discovery 305 CONSTRUCTION 509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) 599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION 603N AUTO NEGLIGENCE- PERSONAL INJURY (non-verbal threshold) 603Y AUTO NEGLIGENCE- PERSONAL INJURY (verbal threshold) 605 PERSONAL INJURY 610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE- PROPERTY DAMAGE 621 UM or UIM CLAIM (Includes bodily Injury) 699 TORT -.OTHER Track Ill • 450 days' discovery 005 CIVIL RIGHTS 301 CONDEMNATION 602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY 604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 606 PRODUCT LIABILITY 607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 608 TOXIC TORT 609 DEFAMATION 616 WHISTLEBLOWER I CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION 618 LAW AG~INST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES Track IV • Active Case Management by Individual Judge /450 days• discovery 156 ENVIRONMENTAUENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 303 MT. LAUREL 508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL 513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION 514 INSURANCE FRAUD 620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT 701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS Multicounty utigation (Track IV) 271 ACCUTANE/ISOTRETINOIN 290 POMPTON LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION 274 RISPERDAUSEROQUEUZVPREXA 291 PELVIC MESH/GYNECARE 278 ZOMETNARE.DIA 292 PELVIC MESH/BARD 279 GADOLINIUM 293 DEPUY ASR HIP IMPLANT LITIGATION 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 295 ALLODERM REGENERATIVE TISSUE MATRIX 282 FOSAMAX 296 STRYKER REJWENATEIABG II MODULAR HIP STEM COMPONENTS 285 STRYKER TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS 297 MIRENA CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE 286 LEVAQUIN 299 OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL MEDICATIONSIBENICAR 287 YAZIYASMIN/OCELLA 300 TALC-BASED BODY POWDERS 288 PRUDENTIAL TORT LITIGATION 601 ASBESTOS 289 REGLAN 623 PROPECIA If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please indicate the reason on Side 1, in the space under "Case Characteristics. Please check off each applicable category D Putative Class Action D Title 59 Effectlve12-07-2015, CN 10517-Engllsh page 2 of2 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 89 CUMBERLAND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT 60 W BROAD ST BRIDGETON NJ 08302 COURT TELEPHONE NO. (856) 453-4330 COURT HOURS 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE DATE: SEPTEMBER 02, 2016 RE: WILSON VS STATE OF NEW JERSEY ETAL DOCKET: CUM L -000608 16 THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3 . DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON RICHARD J. GEIGER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 101 ·AT: (856) 453-4343. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FILING OF YOUR PLEADING. PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH R. 4: 5A-2. ATTENTION: JUHGRIO ATT: JOHN H. SANDERS SHEBELL & SHEBELL LLC 655 SHREWSBURY AVE STE 314 SHREWSBURY NJ 07702 RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2016 SHEBELL&SHEBEll. t.LC Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-2 Filed 12/21/16 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 90 - 1 - CHISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman By: Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General (609) 292-6252 Joel.Clymer@lps.state.nj.us IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VICINAGE OF CAMDEN MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM VARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-07915 (RBK-JS) CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on December 23, 2016, Defendants, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections and Bayside State Prison’s Partial Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer, was electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court and a courtesy copy of the motion was served on the Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. via certified mail, and Plaintiff’s counsel via overnight mail at the following address: Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-3 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 91 - 2 - John H. Sanders II, Esquire Shebell & Shebell, LLC 655 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 314 Shrewsbury, New Jersey 97702 By: /s/ Joel Clymer Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General DATED: December 21, 2016 Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-3 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 92 - 1 - CHISTOPHER S. PORRINO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY R.J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 112 25 Market Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0112 Attorney for Defendants State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Bayside State Prison, Erin Nardelli, William Varrell, William Saraceni, and Daniel Opperman By: Joel Clymer Deputy Attorney General (609) 292-6252 Joel.Clymer@lps.state.nj.us IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY VICINAGE OF CAMDEN MELANIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BAYSIDE STATE PRISON; COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND; CHARLES EGBERT; ERIN NARDELLI; WILLIAM VARRELL; WILLIAM SARACENI; DANIEL OPPERMAN, et al., Defendants. Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Hon. Joel Schneider, U.S.M.J. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-07915 (RBK-JS) ORDER This matter having come before the Court on a motion of Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of New Jersey, by Joel Clymer, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of Defendants, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections and Bayside State Prison for partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and the Court having considered the papers submitted herein, and for good cause shown; Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-4 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 93 - 2 - IT IS on this day of , 2017 ORDERED that Counts 3 and 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice. ____________________________________________ Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 8-4 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 94