Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY E.P., Civil Case No. __________ Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF ORANGE; ORANGE POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER RICARDO ARIAS-VAZQUEZ, Individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the Orange Police Department; EL RODEO BAR & GRILL; JOHN DOES 110 (fictitious names), Individually and in his/her official capacity as employees of the City of Orange and/or Orange Police Department and/or principals and/or employees of El Rodeo Bar and Grill, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND The Plaintiff residing in Essex County, New Jersey, complaining of the Defendants, says: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because the events/omissions giving rise to these causes of action all occurred in the District of New Jersey. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff was at all material times a resident of Essex County, New Jersey. 4. Defendant, Officer Ricardo Arias-Vazquez (“Arias-Vazquez) at all times relevant to this complaint, was a duly appointed Officer of the Orange Police Department acting under color of law. Defendant Arias-Vazquez is being sued individually and in his official capacity. 5. The City of Orange is a municipal corporation and a public employer of the individual Defendant. 6. The Orange Police Department is and was, at all times relevant to this matter, a division and/or department of the City of Orange entrusted with, among other things, enforcing federal, state and local laws and ordinances, and otherwise ensuring the safety of people and property within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Orange. 7. El Rodeo Bar and Grill (“Rodeo Bar”) is an establishment doing business as El Rodeo Bar and Grill in the area of 350 Henry Street, Orange, NJ 07050. 8. Defendants, John Does 1-10, are presently unknown police officers, employees, agents and/or representatives of the City of Orange and/or 2 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3 Orange Police Department whose unlawful actions are described, referenced and/or set forth herein. All are being sued individually and in their official capacities. CAUSE OF ACTION 9. On, or about, November 18, 2015, Arias-Vazquez was working as a uniformed police officer in a marked police vehicle for the Orange Police Department. 10. While on shift and in uniform Arias-Vazquez was hanging out and consuming alcohol at the Rodeo Bar located at 350 Henry Street, Orange, NJ 07050. 11. Upon information and belief, there was illicit and illegal activity being conducted from within Rodeo Bar which Arias-Vazquez, and other members of the Orange Police Department, were either involved and/or complicit in and/or providing protection for. 12. After imbibing at Rodeo Bar, Arias-Vazquez got into his marked police vehicle and began patrolling the streets within the City of Orange. 13. Arias-Vazquez immediately spotted Plaintiff’s vehicle and began tailing her before ultimately engaging his lights and sirens in performing a motor vehicle stop. 3 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4 14. When Arias-Vazquez approached Plaintiff’s vehicle he informed her that she was being pulled over for burnt out tail light. 15. Arias-Vazquez further informed Plaintiff that he was not going to issue her a ticket but asked her to roll her window down further. 16. Plaintiff informed Arias-Vazquez that the window was not working properly and would have to manually open it, i.e. pushed it down by hand. 17. Arias-Vazquez immediately placed his hands on the top of the open portion of the window and forced it down. 18. Arias-Vazquez then informed Plaintiff that he had seen her in town previously. 19. Arias-Vazquez then leaned into the vehicle through the, now open, driver’s side window and began fondling Plaintiff’s breasts over her clothing and insisting that Plaintiff follow him to his home which was nearby. 20. Plaintiff could now smell the scent of alcohol emanating from AriasVazquez. 21. Arias-Vazquez’s perversion continued as he began touching Plaintiff in the area of her vagina before once again touching her breasts. 22. All the while Arias-Vazquez kept insisting that Plaintiff follow him back to his nearby home. 4 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5 23. Fearing for her safety and well-being, Plaintiff pleaded with Arias-Vazquez to let her go. 24. Arias-Vazquez finally relented and told Plaintiff he would see her around town and returned to his marked police cruiser. 25. Plaintiff immediately responded to the Orange Police Department to report the incident. 26. When Plaintiff arrived at the Orange Police Department she was not met with the benevolence the public would expect to receive when reporting a crime. 27. Instead, and indicative of the culture within the Orange Police Department, the station house officer, whose identity is unknown at this time, told Plaintiff he was going to arrest her and place her in jail for lying about one of his brother officers. 28. Plaintiff was then placed into custody and made to sit and wait for an extended period of time. 29. During this time members of the Orange Police Department contacted AriasVazquez in effort to help their brother officer out and tipped him off the complaint Plaintiff was lodging against him. 30. Plaintiff, while still at the Orange Police Department waiting, received a call from an employee of the Rodeo Bar informing her that Arias-Vazquez had 5 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6 informed the owner of the bar that’s she was in the precinct filing a complaint and that she should withdraw her complaint. 31. Plaintiff refused and informed the individual that she would not withdraw the complaint. 32. Shortly thereafter Plaintiff received another call. 33. This time the caller informed Plaintiff that the owner of Rodeo Bar wanted to remind her that she has children and that anything could happen if she talks too much about the illicit activity taking place within the Rodeo Bar and the Orange Police Departments’ protection of same. 34. Plaintiff had an application of her phone which was able to record these threatening calls. 35. When Plaintiff, who was now in fear for her life and still within the confines of the Orange Police Department waiting area, turned the recordings over to the officers who were present they realized the extent of the problem and their inability to make it “go away.” 36. In December 2015, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office charged AriasVazquez with Criminal Sexual Contact and Witness Tampering. 37. Arias-Vazquez has since entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the State under which he entered a plea of guilty to Witness Tampering in exchange for non-custodial probation for which he has been sentenced. 6 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7 38. As a result of these events Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional anguish for which she continues to treat which has prevented her from being able to seek and maintain employment. 39. Furthermore, as a result of this incident, and more specifically due to the threats against her and her children, Plaintiff has been forced to uproot and relocate during the pendency of the prosecution of this matter on more than one occasion. FIRST COUNT Excessive Force 42 U.S.C. § 1983; New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2, et. seq.; & New Jersey Constitution 40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 41. During the course of a traffic stop Defendant Arias-Vazquez intentionally and/or recklessly used unreasonable and/or excessive force on Plaintiff, thereby collectively depriving her of her right to be free from the use of unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the Law of the State of New Jersey including, but not limited to, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. 7 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8 42. Under the totality of the circumstances, or any circumstances for that matter, Defendant Arias-Vazquez actions were not objectively reasonable. 43. The conduct of Defendant Arias-Vazquez occurred while he was acting under color of law and in his official capacity. 44. All of the actions and/or omissions described above were undertaken in a willful and malicious manner with an immoral purpose to injure and/or cause harm to Plaintiff. Defendants are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for punitive and compensatory damages. 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was humiliated, disgraced, traumatized, suffered damage to her reputation, physical and mental anguish and injury and monetary loss and damage all to their great detriment. SECOND COUNT Municipal Liability 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq. 46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 47. At all relevant times, Defendants, City of Orange and/or the Orange Police Department, was the employer of the individual defendants and the individual defendants were acting as its’ agents, servants and employees. 8 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9 48. City of Orange, Orange Police Department failed to use reasonable care in the selection of its employees, against and/or servants, failed to properly train and/or supervise the individual defendants, and failed to provide the appropriate safeguards to prevent the excessive force, batter, conspiracy, and collective violation of the Plaintiff’s rights. 49. City of Orange, Orange Police Department acted under color of law pursuant to an official policy or custom and practice of the City of Orange, Orange Police Department and intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference failed to properly and adequately control and discipline on a continuing basis its employees, agents and/or servants and/or otherwise failed to prevent the individual defendants from unlawfully and maliciously conducting, permitting or allowing the use of excessive force upon Plaintiff in violation of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and/or New Jersey. 50. City of Orange, Orange Police Department had knowledge of, or had it diligently and reasonably exercised its duties to instruct, supervise, control and discipline its employees, agents and/or servants, would have had knowledge of the wrongful acts and/or omissions identified above and 9 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10 intentionally, knowingly or with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights, failed or refused to prevent their commission and/or omission. 51. City of Orange, Orange Police Department, therefore, directly or indirectly, and under color of law, thereby approved or ratified the unlawful, malicious and wanton conduct of the individual defendants. 52. More specifically, Defendant City of Orange had a culture in which officers did anything in their power to protect their brother officers from the consequences of their wrong doing. 53. By way of example, in this case the initial officers Plaintiff spoke to did everything in their power, including threatening to arrest Plaintiff, to chill and discourage Plaintiff’s desire to lodge a complaint. 54. Defendants then tipped off their brother officer about the subject matter of the complaint in the hopes that he could somehow chill Plaintiff further. 55. Despite their best collective efforts Plaintiff, to her credit and the face of danger, remained steadfast in her convictions. 56. The City of Orange knew or should have known that its officers would have to make decisions daily regarding taking complaints regarding other officers within the department. 57. Rather than train, supervise, and implement a proper policy to investigate meaningfully police misconduct, the City of Orange and Orange Police 10 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11 Department adopted a policy and/or culture under which officers were to intentionally chill and deter civilian complaints in order to protect one another. 58. The Policy maker for the City of Orange knows the glaring need for training in how desk officers respond to civilian complaints given the numerous allegations that come before the department as well as the need to supervise officers and meaningfully investigate complaints of police misconduct. 59. Nonetheless, the Policy maker for Orange refuses to retain, supervise, or properly train its officers, create a legitimate IA department, or properly investigate and discipline instances of police misconduct. 60. The lack of training and/or the inadequate training in these areas is tantamount to a custom and/or policy that encourages, and indeed as occurred here, necessitates, the violation of these fundamental rights. 61. In addition, the failure to train the Defendant Officers in these areas is tantamount to the City of Orange’s deliberate indifference to these rights. 62. What is more, the City of Orange has a policy and practice of not disciplining officers if they are found to have violated a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights and immunities. 63. As shown in this case, officers acted with a sense of impunity, and even when faced with a serious allegation of misconduct, the officers apparently 11 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12 told the subject officer of said complaint, thereby giving him an opportunity to influence the complainant. It is an elementary tenant of Internal Affairs investigations that a police officer accused of misconduct should not be given the opportunity to influence a complainant, and that a complaint of police misconduct should be accepted, documented, and protected. 64. Indeed, the City of Orange does conduct investigations into allegations of police misconduct properly, if at all, and they failed to conduct an investigation into the instant conduct. 65. These policies and procedures, in addition to the failure to train the officers in the relevant constitutional laws, reveal a deliberate indifference by the City of Orange regarding the rights of citizens such as the Plaintiffs. 66. This deliberate indifference to citizens’ rights is a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. 67. Had the City of Orange employed a meaningful IA bureau, rather than employing one that shields and insulates officers from liability then perhaps the defendant officers here would not have felt they have the freedom to willfully and purposely violate the Plaintiff’s rights without any regard for consequences and engage in a blatant attempt at a cover up. 12 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13 68. The complete lack of accountability, record keeping, as well as investigation into IA complaints renders the IA department nothing more than an arm of the police department that shields officers from liability. 69. The failure to correct or cull the unlawful activities of these defendant officers as exposed by previous complaints caused Plaintiff’s injuries here as the officers acted in a cavalier manner due to the fact that they knew there would be no professional consequences for their action. THIRD COUNT Illegal Search and Seizure 42 U.S.C. § 1983; New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2, et. seq.; & New Jersey Constitution 70. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 71. Defendant Arias-Vazquez, without any warrant or justification, wholly lacking in any cause whatsoever, probable or otherwise, illegally and improperly searched and seized Plaintiff. 72. Defendant Arias-Vazquez had no legal basis to search and seize Plaintiffs and did so maliciously. 73. These actions were undertaken in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. 13 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14 74. The acts and/or omissions described herein were undertaken and conducted in a willful and malicious manner, with an immoral purpose to injure the person, reputation, standing and integrity of Plaintiff. Defendants are, therefore, liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages. 75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was humiliated, disgraced, suffered damage to her reputation, physical and mental anguish and injury and monetary loss and damage all to their great detriment. FOURTH COUNT Assault and Battery 76. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. Defendant Arias-Vazquez intentionally and unlawfully touched Plaintiff without permission and/or legitimate justification or cause on multiple occasions. 78. Plaintiff suffered injury, harm, damage and loss as a result of said improper contact. 79. Said contact was made with malicious and wanton disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and sensitivities and with an intent or foreseeability of harmful consequences. 14 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15 FIFTH COUNT Civil Conspiracy 80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants entered into an agreement and/or understanding to perpetuate one or more tortious acts upon Plaintiffs. 82. Defendants entered into said agreement and/or understanding for an unlawful purpose and/or to achieve an unlawful purpose by unlawful means. 83. Plaintiff suffered harm, loss and damage as a result of the one or more of the overt acts conducted and/or carried out by one or more of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. SIXTH COUNT Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 85. The actions and/or omissions directed by and/or on behalf of the Defendants toward the Plaintiff were extreme and outrageous. 86. Said acts and/or omissions were intentionally conducted in a manner intended to produce or cause emotional distress and/or were conducted 15 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16 recklessly in deliberate disregard of the high probability that emotional stress would result. 87. The previously described misconduct caused and/or resulted in emotional distress that reasonable person could be expected to endure it. 88. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct, Plaintiff was caused to suffer physical and emotional harm. SEVENTH COUNT Freedom of Speech 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2 et seq. 89. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 90. At all relevant times, all individual defendants were the agents, servants and/or employees of defendants City of Orange and/or Orange Police Department and were, at all times, acting in their official capacity as officers. 91. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech as afforded by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the Law of the State of New Jersey including, but not limited to, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by threatening to arrest Plaintiff for lodging her initial complaint. 16 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17 92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional anguish and Defendant’s conduct served to chill, extinguish and punish Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech; specifically his right to complain about what was done to her. EIGHTH COUNT Negligence 93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 94. Defendants, as sworn members of law enforcement, had a duty to protect Plaintiffs from the injury and Constitutional violations suffered. 95. Defendants’ failure to perform that duty is the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injury and damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for: (a) any and all damages sustained by the Plaintiff arising from the foregoing wrongful and unlawful acts of the Defendants; (b) punitive damages; (c) interest, both pre-judgment and post-judgment; (d) attorney’s fees; 17 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 18 (e) costs; (f) injunctive relief, including but not limited to: (i) An order from this Court enjoining the Orange Police Department from continuing its pattern and practice of violating citizens’ civil rights; (ii) placement of the Orange Police Department in receivership for the purpose of instituting programs to train, instruct, discipline, control, and supervise the officers of the Orange Police Department; (g) and all such other relief as this court may deem appropriate, equitable, and just. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action for all issues triable by a jury. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Joel Silberman, Esq. and Aymen A. Aboushi are hereby designated as trial counsel. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L.CIV.R.11.2 18 Case 2:16-cv-06122-SDW-LDW Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 19 I certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending or contemplated. I further certify that I am aware of no other parties who should be joined in this matter. DATED: September 29, 2016 Respectfully submitted, The Law Offices Of Joel Silberman BY: s/ Joel Silberman Joel Silberman, Esq. 549 Summit Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Tel. (201) 420-1913 Fax (201) 420-1914 Email: joel@joelsilbermanlaw.com 19 By: The Aboushi Law Firm PLLC s/ Aymen Aboushi Aymen A. Aboushi, Esq. 1441 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10018 Tel. (212) 391-8500 Fax (212) 391-8508 Email: Aymen@aboushi.com 1544 (Rev. ((731359 Page 1 Of 1 PageID: 20 The .18 44 civil cover sheet and the infomiation contained provrded by local rules of court. This form, approved by purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. I. (3) PLAIN TIFF . P. County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Essex (EXCEPTIN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) (C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, Email and Telephone Number) Joel Silberman, Esq. 549 Summit Avenue Jersey City NJ 07306 (201 hereinneithcr replace nor supplement the ti the Conference of the United States (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) DEF ENDAN TS NOTE: Attorneys (lflt'nown) ling and service ot?plcadin in September 1974 County of Residence of First Listed Defendant IN LAND CONDEMNATI THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. City of Orange, et, a1. gs or other papers as required by Is requtred for the use of the Clerk of Court for the law, except as Essex (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) ON CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an One Bax Only) CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (For Diversity Cases Only) (Place an in One Boxfar Plaintiff and One Boxfor Defendant) 1 US, Government 53 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen ofThis State ix 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 #4 of Business In This State 2 US. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship QI'Parties in Item of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject ofa 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an in One Box Only) I CONTRACT TORTs FORFEITWTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 1 I 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 150 Recovery ovaerpayment 320 Assault. Libel Pharmaceutical 410 Antitrust Enforcement ofJudgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 13 470 Racketeer In?uenced and (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability OR Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (I395ff) 480 Consumer Credit ofVeteran?s Bene?ts 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 160 Stockholders? Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSII) Title XVI Exchange :1 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act 210 Land Condemnation X440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (US. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Allen Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS?Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing] Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 0f 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Con?nement V. ORIGIN (Place an in One Bax Onlv) x1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Ecinstatcdd or 5 Transferred from 6 ypltidiggict 8 Epilgtiadiiggriet 11 a1 - Proceeding State Court Appellate Court eopene $513523 District Tral'gIS fer Direct File Cite the US Civil Statute under which you are ti 42 USC 1983 Brief description of cause: VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ling (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversion: Civil Rights Violations Excessive Force, Monell, Unlawful Serach and Seizure, etc. VII. REQUESTED CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 55 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, JURY DEMAND: Yes No RELATED . . IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER 7 DATE 310 RE or ATT EY or RECORD 09/29/2016 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY L) RECEIPT AMOUNT APPLYING IFP MAG. JUDGE JUDGE Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID: 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Plaintiff V. CITY OF ORANGE POLICE OFFICER RICARDO ARIAS-VAZQUEZ, Individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the Orange Police Department; EL RODEO BAR JOHN DOES l?lO (fictitious names), Individually and in his/her official capacity as employees of the City of Orange and/or Orange Police Department and/or principals and/or employees of El Rodeo Bar and Grill, Defendants. Case NO. ANSWER, SEPARATE DEFENSES, CROSSCLAIM, JURY DEMAND, AND CLAIM FOR FEES Defendants, City of Orange Township (improperly plead as ?City of Orange?) and Orange Police Department (hereinafter referred to as ?Defendants Orange?), by way of Answer to the Plaintiff?s Complaint, say as follows: THE PARTIES l. Defendants Orange deny that the Plaintiff?s Complaint is properly venued in the Federal District Court. 2. Defendants Orange deny that the Plaintiff?s Complaint is properly venued in the Federal District Court. PARTIES 3. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 23 PageID: 27 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 4. Defendants Orange admit that Defendant Arias?Vazquez was an officer of the Orange Police Department. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, Defendants Orange denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 5. Defendants orange admits it is a municipal corporation. Defendant Orange admits it employed the COMDefendant, Ricardo Arias?Vazquez. 6. Defendants Orange admit the allegations of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 7. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 8. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. CAUSE OF ACTION 9. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 10. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 3 of 23 PageID: 28 allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 11. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 12. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 13. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 14. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 15. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 16. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 17. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 4 of 23 PageID: 29 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 18. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 19. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 20. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 21. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 22. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 23. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 5 of 23 PageID: 30 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 24. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 25. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 26. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 27. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 28. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 29. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 6 of 23 PageID: 31 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 30. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 31. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 32. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 33.. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 34. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 35. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 7 of 23 PageID: 32 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 36. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 36 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 37. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 38. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 39. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 39 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. FIRST COUNT Excessive Force 40. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 41. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information 7 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 8 of 23 PageID: 33 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 4i of Plaintiff's Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 42. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 42 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 43. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 43 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 44. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 45. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 45 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. SECOND COUNT Municipal Liability 46. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 47. Defendants Orange admit they employed co?Defendant, 8 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 9 of 23 PageID: 34 Ricardo Arias?Vazquez. Defendant Orange cannot admit or deny any other individuals were employed until they are identified. Defendant Orange denies co-Defendant or any individuals were acting as its agents, servants employees as to these allegations. 48. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 48 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 49. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 49 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 50. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 50 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 51. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 51 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 52. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 52 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 53. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 53 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 54. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 55. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 10 of 23 PageID: 35 Paragraph 55 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 56. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 57. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 57 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 58. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 58 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 59. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 59 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 60. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 60 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 61. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 61 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 62. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 63. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 63 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 64. Defendants Orange admit Orange Police Department, through Internal Affairs investigates police misconduct. Defendants Orange deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 64. 65. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 65 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 66. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 66 10 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 11 of 23 PageID: 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 67. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 67 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 68. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 68 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 69. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 69 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. Illegal Search and Seizure 70. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every reSponse and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 71. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 71 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 72. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 72 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 73. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 73 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 74. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information 11 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 12 of 23 PageID: 37 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 74 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 75. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 75 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. FOURTH COUNT Assault and Battery 76. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 77. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 76 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 78. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 78 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 79. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 79 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. FIFTH COUNT 12 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 13 of 23 PageID: 38 Civil Conspiracy 80. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 81. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 81 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 82. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 82 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 83. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 83 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. SIXTH COUNT Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 84. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 85. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 85 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 86. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 86 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 87. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 87 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 88. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 88 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. SEVENTH COUNT Freedom of Speech 13 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 14 of 23 PageID: 39 89. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 90. Defendants Orange admit Arias?Vasquez was employed by Orange but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 90 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. Defendant Orange can neither admit or deny any allegation to any unknown or un?named individual defendants. 91. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 91 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. 92. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 92 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. EIGHTH COUNT Negligence 93. Defendants Orange repeat and reallege each and every response and defense contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 94. Defendants Orange are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. To the extent any allegation is directed at Defendant, Orange, same is denied. 95. Defendants Orange deny the allegations of Paragraph 95 of Plaintiff?s Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, hereby demand judgment dismissing Plaintiff?s 14 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID: 40 Complaint, and attorney?s fees, costs and such other relief as this Court may deem proper and just. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient proof to establish a Monell claim against Orange. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There is no vicarious liability on the part of Orange. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Co?Defendant, Ricardo Arias~Vazquuez, and any employee who may be later named, acted outside of the scope of their employment. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Orange is not liable for the actions or omissions of the public employee, co?Defendant, Ricardo Arias?Vazquez, those who may be named at a later time who committed a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or wilful misconduct pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:2?10. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any and all claims that Plaintiff made against the answering Defendants are barred by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed and neglected to give notice of claim to the answering Defendants within 90 days of accrual of this claim as mandated by N.J.S.A. 59:8wl gt. seq. 15 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 16 of 23 PageID: 41 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action as against Defendants Orange. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE There is no improper conduct on behalf of Defendants Orange. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff or caused by the joint or several negligence and/or intentional acts of Co?Defendants and/or Third Parties over which the answering Defendants had no control. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s action is barred by the Statute of Limitations. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s action is barred in whole or in part by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's action is barred because Plaintiff has unclean hands. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s action is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These Defendants had no duty towards Plaintiff. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants Orange are immune from suit pursuant to the 16 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 17 of 23 PageID: 42 provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:5n4. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59 2?1. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff pursuant to N.J.S.A. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Without admitting liability, any alleged action or failure to act on the part of the answering Defendants was in the nature of discretionary activity within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:2?3 and accordingly, no liability may be imposed upon the answering Defendants. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 59:3?2. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovering to which Plaintiff might otherwise be entitled is subject to the reduction in accordance with the limitations on damages pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:9?2. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any acts and/or admissions and/or negligence, if any, on the part of the answering Defendants is not the proximate cause of any damages or injuries which may have been sustained by 17 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 18 of 23 PageID: 43 Plaintiff. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants are immune from suit pursuant to the provisions of J.S.A. 59:2?10. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants assert that they are entitled to complete immunity by the virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:4?1 gt. egg. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The answering Defendants? claim is limited by N.J.S.A. 2AzlS-97. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff cannot recover punitive or exemplary damages against these answering Defendants. N.J.S.A. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiff?s Complaint should be dismissed for this Court does not have subject matter or personal jurisdiction of this matter. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiff?s Complaint is barred for Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements set forth in 42 U.S C. and SEC 1983 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s action is barred for Plaintiff has filed this action in an improper venue. 18 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 19 of 23 PageID: 44 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff?s action is barred due to insufficiency of process. CROSSCLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST DEMAND FOR CONTRIBUTION 1. At the time and place mentioned in Plaintiff's Complaint, the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff resulted solely from the negligence, recklessness, criminal, and/or intentional acts of the Co?Defendants and responsibility is therefore, upon said Co?Defendants, or if there was any negligence, recklessness and/or acts on part of the Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, which is hereby denied, the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional acts of Co?Defendants were a major contributing factor therein and Co?Defendants are liable. 2. By reasons of the negligence, recklessness, criminal, and/or intentional acts of said Co?Defendants and pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Law, N.J.S.A. e; Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, is entitled to recover from said Co?Defendants a proportionate share or all of which Plaintiff may recover. WHEREFORE, Defendants Orange demand judgment of negligence, 19 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 20 of 23 PageID: 45 recklessness and/or intentional acts against said Co?Defendants and further demand judgment against said Co?Defendants in favor of Plaintiff and this by virtue of said Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Law. DEMAND FOR INDEMNIFICATION Defendants Orange, while denying negligence, recklessness and/or intentional acts, assert that the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional acts, if any, were that of the Co?Defendants aforesaid and that the liability of Defendants Orange, if any and which is denied, was derivative and secondary in nature and the liability of the said Co?Defendants was the primary character, thus giving rise to a duty on the of the said Co?Defendants to hold Defendants Orange harmless and indemnify the Defendants Orange, from any loss herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants Orange demand judgment for full indemnification from all other ComDefendants together with lawful interest and costs of suit. DEMAND FOR CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, hereby demand of all said remaining Co?Defendants complete contractual indemnification if any, as to liability and to complete defense of the within action pursuant to the contractual agreement, if any, effective between the parties with reference to this cause of action. 20 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 21 of 23 PageID: 46 WHEREFORE, Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, demand judgment for complete indemnification, defense and costs from all remaining Co?Defendants. RESERVATION OF BIFURCATION Defendants Orange reserves the right to move to bifurcate and require Plaintiff to first establish any alleged constitutional violation by any individual officer before proceeding against Defendants Orange. RESERVATION OF RIGHT AND CLAIM FOR FEES AND COSTS Pursuant to the provisions of the Frivolous Law Act N.J.S.A. et. seq. and Defendants Orange, hereby assert a claim against the Plaintiff for reimbursement of all attorney?s fees and costs associated with this defense of the action. DEMAND FOR DAMAGES You are hereby requested and required to furnish to the undersigned within five (5) days, a written statement of the amount of damages claims in this action. DENIAL OF CROSSCLAIMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS The answering Defendants deny any and all crossclaims and contributions that may be asserted against them. JURY DEMAND Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department, hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues presented 21 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 22 of 23 PageID: 47 herein. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL David C. Stanziale, Esq., is hereby designated as trial counsel for Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department. DEMAND FOR RULE 26 DISCLOSURES Demand is hereby made for Rule 26 Disclosure. DENIAL OF CROSSCLAIMS AND CONTRIBUTION The answering Defendants deny any and all crossclaims and contributions that may be asserted against them. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO L. CIV. R. 11.2 It is hereby certified that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding to the best of our knowledge and belief. Further, other than the parties set forth in this pleading, at the present time we know of no other parties that should be joined in the within action. DAVID C. STANZIALE, LLC Attorneys for Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department DATED: October 20, 2016 C. STANZIALE DAVID C. STANZIALE 22 Case Document 6 Filed 10/20/16 Page 23 of 23 PageID: 48 CERTIFICATION I certify that this pleading was served within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court. DAVID C. STANZIALE, LLC Attorneys for Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department DATED: October 20, 2016 Byz/S/ DAVID C. STANZIALE DAVID C. STANZIALE DAVID C. STANZIALEI LLC David C. Stanziale, Esq., NJ Atty. ID #017241991 552 High Mountain Road North Haledon, New Jersey 07508 (973) 955-0470 Attorney for Defendants, City of Orange Township and Orange Police Department 23