Article by Patrick J. Graham, Esq.

Early in law school, future attorneys are taught to pay attention to times and dates because one small procedural error in the timeliness of a filing could make or break a case. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently demonstrated just how important this early lesson can be and how failure to act promptly can cost a client time, effort and money.

In DiGiesi v. Township of Bridgewater Police Department, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55476 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2024), plaintiff sued the Township of Bridgewater Police Department (BTPD) as well as thirteen individual defendants in their official and individual capacities stemming from an alleged “orchestrated effort” to falsely arrest and prosecute him. In March 2016, Plaintiff was working as a security guard at a local restaurant when a verbal altercation broke out between plaintiff and the son of a retired BTPD officer. The verbal altercation escalated to a disputed account of physical blows leading to plaintiff pushing the officer’s son and causing the officer’s son to suffer personal injuries. Thereafter, a Somerset County grand jury returned a one-count indictment of third-degree aggravated assault leading to plaintiff’s arrest. The matter was tried in a bench trial over the course of two days which resulted in plaintiff’s acquittal on June 6, 2017. The Court found that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that a third-degree aggravated assault, or any of its lesser included offenses, was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

On July 1, 2019, plaintiff filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting claims against BTPD and its individual officers sounding in violations of both the Federal and State Civil Rights Acts, violations of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, malicious abuse of the legal process, malicious prosecution, false arrest, defamation and conspiracy to commit tort. Six of the individual defendants were dismissed by stipulation leaving seven other individual defendants along with the BTPD.

After the case proceeded through discovery, BTPD moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 56. The individual defendants followed suit by filing a motion for summary judgment also pursuant to Federal Rule 56. In analyzing these motions in the context of plaintiff’s claims, defendants argued that plaintiff’s claims of violations of his Federal civil rights were time-barred. In agreeing with defendants that the Federal civil rights claims were time-barred, the Court emphasized that these claims arise out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not any of its surrounding sections. Further, when determining the statute of limitations for these claims, which are essentially for personal injuries, the Court followed State law and determined that plaintiff’s Federal civil rights claims held a two-year statute of limitations like other New Jersey personal injury claims. The false arrest claim begins to accrue when plaintiff “knew or had reason to know of his injury,” which was when he was arrested on or around March 13, 2016. Further, the malicious prosecution claim would accrue when “the criminal proceedings against the claimant terminated in his favor…” which was on June 6, 2017.

Since plaintiff filed his complaint on July 1, 2019, his Federal civil rights claims were time-barred under the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations. The Court explained that he should have been aware of the accrual of his claims after the alleged violations took place, which was especially true of his claim for malicious prosecution. There, the Court did not accept the argument that accrual was when the Judgement of Acquittal was uploaded, but rather, it found that accrual began on the date of acquittal.

In dismissing plaintiff’s claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court determined since it no longer held original jurisdiction over any of the remaining claims, they must be dismissed without prejudice and decided by the state Courts of New Jersey. Thus, the motions were denied to the extent that they sought dismissal of the remaining State law claims with prejudice.

In reaching its decision, the Court affirmed the principle that allegations of violations of Federal civil rights, egregious as they may be, must be timely filed. Where these claims are deficient, a Federal court has no obligation to rule on any remaining State law claims, which could result in those claims being sent back to a State Court in what could end up being a challenging venue for one of the parties. In addition to potential challenges posed by a particular venue, this dismissal with prejudice and refiling of claims in State Court will cost more time, effort and money as a result of issues that could have been avoided. As shown in this case, an untimely filing can easily make a March 2016 incident the subject of continued litigation over eight years later in 2024 with a number of claims left to be resolved in a new court, before a new Judge and in a new venue.