Lawsuit Filed by Joseph DiBuonaventura

Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 116
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Attorney for Defendant Sean F. Dalton
By: Benjamin H. Zieman (ID: 082712013)

Deputy Attorney General
(609)292-1575
Benjamin.Zieman@lps.state.nj.us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
HON. ________________, U.S.D.J.

JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________
v.
SEAN F. DALTON, RAFAEL MUNIZ,

in their individual and
official capacities, NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants.
TO: United States District Court

District of New Jersey Camden Vicinage
Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets
Camden, NJ 08101
Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq.

The Vigilante Law Firm, P.C.
99 North Main Street
Mullica Hill, New Jersey 08062
Patrick J. Madden, Esq.

Madden & Madden, P.A.
108 Kings Highway East, Suite 200
P.O. Box 210
Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033
-1-
This Notice of Removal having been opened to the Court by
counsel CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY,
Deputy Attorney General Benjamin H. Zieman appearing on behalf of
Defendant, Sean F. Dalton, in accordance with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. 1446 respectfully shows that:
1. Sean F. Dalton is a defendant in a civil action brought
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester
County, entitled: DiBuonaventura v. Dalton, et al., bearing
Gloucester County Docket Number GLO-L-285-17.
2. Plaintiffs original complaint was filed on March 3,
2017, and only alleged violations of the New Jersey Constitution
actionable under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
10:6-2(c). A copy of the original complaint is attached hereto as
EXHIBIT A.
3. On May 24, 2017, Defendant Dalton moved to dismiss the
original complaint for failure to state a claim, which was made
returnable on June 9, 2017. A copy of Defendant Daltons notice of
motion is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.
4. After counsel for Defendant Dalton consented to
Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file an opposition
brief, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which was served on
counsel for Defendant Dalton on June 15, 2017. A copy of this
amended complaint, stamped on the first page with the date and time
it was received by counsel for Defendant Dalton, is attached hereto
-2-
as EXHIBIT C.
5. On June 22, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff advised the
Gloucester County Superior Court via letter that the filing of the
amended complaint in response to Defendant Daltons motion to
dismiss rendered that motion moot. A copy of this letter is
attached hereto as EXHIBIT D.
6. Nevertheless, on July 7, 2017, the Gloucester County
Superior Court entered an Order granting Defendant Daltons motion
to dismiss with prejudice. Because Defendant Daltons motion should
have been dismissed as moot on the filing of Plaintiffs amended
complaint, this Order is void. A copy of this Order is attached
hereto as EXHIBIT E.
7. The United States District Court has original
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, which
in turn means this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), because the amended complaint
is the first pleading in which Plaintiff asserted federal
constitutional claims actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
8. This Notice of Removal is timely filed, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1446(b)(1) and (3), allowing Defendant Dalton to remove,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, since it is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt
by counsel for Defendant Dalton of a copy of the amended complaint.
9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(2)(A), Mr. Patrick J.
-3-
Madden, Esq., counsel for co-defendant Rafael Muniz, has consented
to the removal of this action.
10. In accordance with L. Civ. R. 11.2, the present matter in
controversy is related to two other matters pending the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County: (1)
DiBuonaventura v. Washington Township, et al., bearing Gloucester
County Docket Number GLO-L-1435-13 before the Honorable David W.
Morgan, J.S.C.; and (2) DiBuonaventura v. Washington Township,
bearing Gloucester County Docket Number GLO-L-503-15. In accordance
with L. Civ. R. 11.2 and 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned declares
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Dalton (with the consent of counsel for
co-defendant Muniz) respectfully requests that the action now
pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Gloucester County, entitled DiBuonaventura v. Dalton, et al., and
bearing Gloucester County Docket Number GLO-L-285-17, be removed to
this Court.
By: s/ Benjamin H. Zieman________

Benjamin H. Zieman
DATE: July 13, 2017
-4-
Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1-1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 5
State of New Jersey

CHRIS CHRISTIE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO
Governor DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY Attorney General
DIVISION OF LAW
KIM GUADAGNO 25 MARKET STREET MICHELLE L. MILLER
Lt. Governor PO Box 116 Acting Director
TRENTON, NJ 08625-0116
July 13, 2017
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT MAIL

Gloucester County Superior Court
Civil Division Case Management Office
1 North Broad Street
Woodbury, New Jersey 08096
Re: DiBuonaventura v. Dalton, et al.

Docket No.: GLO-L-285-17
Dear Sir/Madam:
This office represents the Defendant, Gloucester County

Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton, in the above-referenced matter.
Enclosed, please find a copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden
Vicinage, removing this matter to that court from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County. THERE IS NO
FILING FEE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 22A:2-22 BECAUSE THIS IS FILED BY A
STATE OFFICER PAID FROM STATE FUNDS.
Please file the original and return a Filed copy in the

enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope. Thank you and if you
have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
By: s/ Benjamin H. Zieman_______

Benjamin H. Zieman (ID: 082712013)
Enc.
cc: Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq. (overnight)
Patrick J. Madden, Esq. (overnight)
HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX TELEPHONE: (609) 292-1575 FAX: (609) 633-8702 Benjamin.Zieman@lps.state.nj.us
New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Joseph DiBuonaventura Sean F. Dalton and Rafael Muniz
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Atlantic County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Gloucester
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq., The Vigilante Law Firm, P.C., 99 North For Dalton: DAG Benjamin H Zieman, 25 Market Street, Trenton NJ
Main Street, Mullica Hill, NJ 08062, 856-223-9990 08625, 609-292-1575; For Muniz: Patrick J. Madden, Esq., 108 Kings
Hwy E, Haddonfield NJ 08033, 856-428-9520
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 835 Patent - Abbreviated u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veterans Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 160 Stockholders Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability u 751 Family and Medical u 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act u 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: u 791 Employee Retirement u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 896 Arbitration
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRSThird Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General u 950 Constitutionality of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)
u 1 Original u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict u 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment (due process/equal protection) violations
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE see notice of removal DOCKET NUMBER see notice of removal
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
07/03/2017 s/ Benjamin H. Zieman
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 06/17)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
By: Benjamin H. Zieman (ID: 082712013)

(609)292-1575
Benjamin.Zieman@lps.state.nj.us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
HON. ________________, U.S.D.J.

JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________
v.

in their individual and
official capacities, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Defendants.
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the within cover
letter, notice of removal, exhibits, certificate of service and
civil cover sheet with the Clerk of the United States District
Court, and that a copy of these documents will be sent via UPS
Overnight Mail to:


-1-

Patrick J. Madden, Esq.

Madden & Madden, P.A.
108 Kings Highway East, Suite 200
P.O. Box 210
Haddonfield, New Jersey 08033
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
By: s/ Benjamin H. Zieman________

Benjamin H. Zieman
Dated: July 13, 2017
-2-
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex
By: Benjamin H. Zieman (082712013)

(609)292-1575
Benjamin.Zieman@dol.lps.state.nj.us
JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA, : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

: LAW DIVISION - GLOUCESTER COUNTY
Plaintiff, :
: DOCKET NO. GLO-L-285-17
v. :
: Civil Action
SEAN F. DALTON, RAFAEL MUNIZ, :
in their individual and : NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS
official capacities, : PURSUANT TO R.4:6-2(e)
:
Defendants. :
:
To:


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, June 9, 2017, at 9:00
a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the
undersigned will apply to the Superior Court, Law Division,
Gloucester County, for an Order dismissing all claims against
1
Defendant, Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton, WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e).
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the undersigned will rely
upon the attached Brief and Certification of Counsel with
Exhibits.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to R. 1:6-2, it is
requested that the Court consider this motion on the papers
submitted UNLESS opposition is timely filed, in which case, oral
argument is hereby requested.
Discovery End Date: none.
Arbitration Date: none.
Trial Date: none.
A proposed form of Order is attached.
By: s/ Benjamin H. Zieman

Benjamin H. Zieman (082712013)
Dated: May 24, 2017 Deputy Attorney General
2
. ,, f
~~ '_ . . ~ , . .._
't,. ~ 1'
-1-
Jacqueline M. Vigilante
NJ Bar Id.030961988
Micole Sparacio
THE VIGILANTE LAW FIRM,PC
Mullica Hill, NJ 08062
856-223-9990
Attornevs for Plaintiff
Superior Court of Ne~v Jersey
JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA
Plaintiff Gloucester County, Law Division
v. Docket No: GLO-L 00285-17
SEAN F. DALTON,RAFAEL MUNIZ, FIRST AMENDED

in their individual and official COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
capacities,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMES NOW, JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA, Plaintiff herein and who hereby files
this Amended Complaint for damages. This Amended Complaint is filed as a matter of right
pursuant to R.4:9-1. This claim involves a pattern of conduct based on personal and political
motive and malicious intent over a period of dine by the Defendants in their individual capacities
designed to violate Plaintiffs constitution and statutory rights. Plaintiff seeks an award of
compensatory damages against Defendants for the costs associated with his defense of the
misconduct charges brought against him as well as the emotional distress he suffered. Plaintiff
also seeks back pay and equitable relief including front pay and/or reinstatement, and
-2-
reimbursement for all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution of this litigation.
Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against Defendants Muniz and Dalton in their individual
capacities. In support thereof Plaintiff avers as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE AND STATUTORY PREREQUISITES
1. This action is initiated pursuant to the New Jersey State Constitution, New Jersey
Civil Rights Act 10:6-1 et seq, the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the United States
Constitution. This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
the individual Defendants are citizens of the State of New Jersey.
2. Venue is properly laid in this County because Defendants are domiciled and/or
regularly engage in business in the County of Gloucester and a substantial part of the acts and/or
omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this County.
II. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Joseph DiBuonaventura, ("Plaintiff') is an adult individual residing in
Atlantic County, State of New Jersey, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Defendant, Rafael Muniz,("Defendant Muniz" or "Muniz") is an adult individual
residing in Gloucester County, State of New Jersey, who serves as Chief of Police of Washington
Township Police Department and who is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
-3-
5. Defendant, Sean F. Dalton, ("Defendant Dalton" or "Dalton") is an adult
individual residing in Gloucester County, State of New Jersey, who serves as the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County and who is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Facts related to the Parties
6. From 2004 through 2008, Paul Moriarty ("Moriarty") served as the Mayor of
Washington Township.
4tn
7. In 2006 Moriarty was elected to the New Jersey State Assembly for the
Legislative District in the State of New Jersey, which is a position he still holds.
8. '
In 1993 through 1997, Defendant Dalton served as an Assemblyman in the 4`t
Legislative District in the State of New Jersey.
9. In 2002, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:158-1, Dalton was appointed Gloucester County
Prosecutor for afive-year term and reappointed in 2007, to a second five-year term.
10. While not reappointed since the end of his term in 2012, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2A:158-2, Sean F. Dalton remains in the position Chief Law Enforcement Officer in Gloucester
COt111ty.
11. As the Prosecutor and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County
Defendant Dalton is responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions in the County of
Gloucester on behalf of the State of New Jersey.
12. In addition to and separate and apart from his duties as a State Prosecutor,
Defendant Dalton is responsible for administrative tasks and personal matters and decisions for
the employees under his supervision, control and authority.
13. In that role, Dalton serves as a County official in a function separate and apart from
his duties and responsibilities law enforcement and investigatory fiinctions.
14. In that capacity, Defendant Dalton had supervisory authority over the operations of
municipal police departments in connection with internal affairs investigations and personnel
matters.
15. The Washington Township Police department is a municipal police department.
16. As the County's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Dalton was responsible for
Internal Affairs investigations in municipal police departments involving allegations of
wrongdoing by high ranking municipal police officers and for internal affairs investigations where
a conflict of interest prevented a municipal police department from investigating one of its own
officers.
17. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, the Washington Township Police Department
was a law enforcement agency at all times bound by the guidelines governing the "Internal Affairs
-5-
Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police Bureau of
the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety.
18. In this case, due to the conflict of interest identified herein, Dalton was the person
responsible for the administrative internal affairs investigation into whether Plaintiff violated any
municipal police department rules and regulations.
19. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181, Defendant Dalton as the person responsible for
the administrative internal affairs investigation was bound by guidelines governing the "Internal
Affairs Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual promulgated by the Police
Bureau ofthe Division ofCriminal Justice in the Department of Law and Public Safety with regard
to any internal affairs investigation in which he was involved..
20. As the Chief of Police of Washington Township, Muniz was bound by guidelines
governing the "Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures" of the Police Management Manual
promulgated by the Police Bureau of the Division of Criminal Justice in the Department of Law
and Public Safety with regard to any internal affairs investigation in which he was involved.
21. At all times, Plaintiff was a municipal police officer who was subjected to an
internal affairs investigation which led to his unlawful employment termination as a result of
arresting a former mayor of Washington Township and political associate of Defendants Dalton
and Muniz.
Facts related to the Claims

22. From 2006 to 2009, Paul Moriarty served as Mayor of Washington Township,
Gloucester County.
23. During his tenure, Moriarty promoted Defendant Rafael Muniz, from the rank of
Lieutenant to the rank of Chief of Police.
24. Defendant Muniz remained in the position of Chief of Police of Washington
Township Police Department(WTPD)until December 31, 2016.
25. At all tunes relevant hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Washington Township as a
Police Officer.
26. On June 5, 2012, Muniz alleged in a complaint to Dalton that on that same date he
became aware of an OPRA request seeking a copy of a police report which could not be found by
the WTPD at that time.
27. The report, identified by member in the OPRA request, was of a theft of more than
$6,000 in jewelry committed by Muniz's son.
28. At the time the theft was committed it was reported to Muniz and the WTPD, which
failed to repo~~t or refer the crime to the GCPO despite the fact that the incident involved an alleged
felony offense and confession which required review by the GCPO.
29. Muiz's son was not arrested for that crime even though it was reported to the WTPD
and the report included a confession.

-~-
30. Even though a copy of the report was available to and at the WTPD, Dalton
authorized an investigation into the missing report and assigned that investigation to Lt. Langdon
Sills. After a lengthy investigation into who took the missing report, the report was located in the
WTPD.
31. Even though a copy of the report was available, the victim was denied a copy upon
her attempt to obtain same.
32. Upon information and belief, the report was never missing, but had been removed
by Muniz or someone at his direction in an effort to protect Muniz from embarrassment.
33. Upon information and belief, Dalton and Sills did not initiate an investigation into
the underlying crime for the same reason.
34. Despite the allegation of a felony, Dalton did not, initiate an investigation or
prosecution of the alleged theft committed by Muniz's son until the victim sought began to
complain that the offense was not investigated or charged.
35. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff reported to the Washington Township Business
Administrator that that Muniz had engaged in misconduct by failing to refer the crime committed
by his son to the prosecutor's office for investigation.
36. The business administrator communicated that information to Dalton verbally on
or about that date.

37. On or before July 24, 2012, Defendant Dalton received written communication
from the Washington Township Business Administrator regarding Plaintiff's complaint of
misconduct.
38. Despite the complaint forwarded to the GCPO about Muniz's misconduct, Dalton
did not initiate a prompt investigation.
39. Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally ignored information about Muniz's improper
conduct.
40. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrested Moriarty on violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 and
39:405.4, commonly known as DUI and refusal.
41. On or about August 6, 2012, Dalton received a third notification of Muniz's
misconduct when Plaintiff filed a separate complaint with the Gloucester County Prosecutor's
Office alleging that Defendant Muniz engaged in official misconduct in failing to refer the theft
involving his son to the GCPO for investigation or charges; failing to file charges against his son
for jewelry thefts which occurred in Washington Township; engaging in possible witness
intimidation and/or bribery; and failing to follow normal police procedures in investigating the
jewelry thefts, where his son was identified by all witnesses as the suspect.
42. Following his at-rest on DUI and refusal, Moriarty proceeded to flood the press with
statements about his belief that the arresting officer, Plaintiff, was comipt and that the arrest was
motivated by ill will.

43. As a result of Moriarty's press campaign, Defendant Muniz recognized
immediately that there would be an administrative internal affairs investigation into the conduct
of Plaintiff.
44. Defendant Muniz also recognized that he had a conflict ofinterest which precluded
hiin and his department from conducting the Internal Affairs investigation because former Mayor
Moriarty had recommended his appointment to the position of Chief in 2006 and that such
involvement may lead to the "justifiable impression to the public" that there is an appearance of a
conflict. See Exhibit A.
45. Muniz and Dalton discussed the conflict of interest immediately after the arrest.
46. Despite the acknowledged conflict of interest, between July 31, 2012 and August
14, 2012, Muniz worked directly in concert with investigators assigned by Dalton to the internal
affairs investigation to investigate Plaintiff and to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty
in his claims and defenses.
47. Despite immediately acknowledging the conflict of interest and communicating
that conflict verbally to Dalton, Muniz acting in accord with John Porter, an investigator under
Dalton's direct supervision and control, took and ordered a series of actions to investigate the
alleged misconduct between July 31, 2012 and August 14, 2012 when the letter was finally
submitted to the GCPO, which included:

-10-
a. retrieving available video data from Plaintiff's patrol vehicle mobile video recorder
(MVR);
b. authorizing Lieutenant Rolando to seek to obtain additional metadata from the MVR
which was not readily available and which had not been obtained in any other DUI or
refusal investigation by the WTPD;
c. retrieving additional metadata for use against Plaintiff;
cl. permitting Moriarty to access the WTPD through the police entrance to meet with Lt.
Rolando for the purpose of reading a statement into the record as a complaint instead
of participating an interview as required under the NJ Attorney General guidelines on
Internal Affairs;
e. authorizing Lt. Rolando to refrain from asking IVloriarty any questions about his
complaint;
f: instructing Plaintift~ to cease all activity in connection with his ongoing investigation
of Moriarty's DUI and refilsal; and
g. failing to order other- involved sworn law enforcement to issue reports.
48. Dalton pel-mitted Muniz to proceed with the investigation despite acknowledging
the conflict of interest which allowed Muniz to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty in
his claims and defenses.

-11-
49. Muniz and Dalton were politically motivated to target plaintiff and assist Moriarty
in defeating the DUI and refusal charges.
50. After gathering up evidence which was designed to assist Moriarty in his complaint
against Plaintiff, Muniz forwarded the conflict of interest letter to Dalton on August 14, 2012,
requesting that the GCPO assume responsibility for the investigation.
51. Upon receipt of the correspondence marked Exhibit A, Dalton communicated with
the NJ Attorney General for guidance on handling the request, but continued to allow Muniz and
WTPD to build a case against Plaintiff to assist Moriarty in his claims and defenses.
52. The NJ Attorney General advised the Dalton that his office should handle the
internal affairs investigation and cautioned that the IA investigation should not proceed prior to
the adjudication of the DUI and refusal trial in the matter of State v. Moriarty.
53. As a result of that communication, on September 5, 2012, Dalton informed Muniz
that his office would handle the internal affairs investigation involving Moriarty's complaint.
54. Once Dalton was responsible for the internal affairs investigation, Muniz and the
WTPD should have been conflicted out of the matter and removed from any participation in the
administrative investigation.
55. As of the date the conflict was disclosed, Dalton was administratively responsible
for the internal affairs investigation and any employee discipline which could have followed.
-12-
56. Despite the cautionary instruction and guidance of the AG's office, Dalton did not
stay the internal affairs investigation pending the outcome of the DUI and refusal trial.
57. Dalton assigned the internal affairs investigation to County Detective Robert
Hemphill with. no instructions to stay the investigation pending the outcome ofthe DUI and refusal
trial.
58. Instead of staying the IA investigation, per the AG's instruction, Hemphill began
the IA investigation on September 6, 2012.
59. On September 26, 2012, on behalf of the GCPO Hemphill issued a Notice of
Internal Affairs Investigation to Plaintiff.
60. A scheme was devised by which it was determined that if Moriarty filed criminal
charges against the Plaintiff, the plaintiff would exercise Fifth amendment rights not to testify
against Moriarty and as a result the charges against Moriarty could and would be dismissed.
61. Upon information and belief defendants participated in, knew of or acquiesced to
that scheme.
62. On October 16, 2012, Moriarty was permitted once again by Muniz to enter the
WTPD through its police only entrance where he met privately with Defendants Muniz and Lt.
Rolando.
-13-
63. Despite the fact that Moriarty was a criminal defendant in the DUI and refusal case
and Muniz and the WTPD had a clear confirmed conflict ofinterest in the IA matter, Moriarty met
twice on that day for an extended period oftime with Rolando, Muniz and court personnel.
64. These meetings were designed to assist Moriarty in drafting and filing criminal
charges against Plaintiff.
65. Following the meetings, Moriarty emerged with a criminal complaint containing
twenty-seven (27) criminal charges directed at Plaintiff, which Moriarty promptly filed with the
Municipal Court in Washington Township.
66. Moriarty could have filed those charges with Dalton, whose office was handling
the IA at that time. However, the GCPO would have had to hold any such charges until such time
as the DUI and refusal were adjudicated.
67. Upon information and belief, the scheme was designed so that the charges were
filed in municipal court so that the GCPO would have to proceed with a criminal investigation.
68. The criminal complaints once filed were sent to GCPO Chief of Detectives John
Porter by Muniz's secretary on October 17, 2012, who promptly advised Defendant Dalton of the
summary of the charges against Plaintiff.
69. On or about that same date, Defendant Dalton issued findings in the Internal Affairs
Investigation complaint initiated by Plaintiff before the Moriarty anest regarding whether Muniz
mishandled the criminal investigation involving his o~vn son.

-14-
70. Dalton's conclusion was that Muniz did not engage in misconduct by failing to
make an arrest in the theft case or to refer the criminal case to the GCPO.
71. Dalton reached that conclusion even though the GCPO did in fact initiate a
criminal prosecution against Muniz's son at that same time demonstrating the fact that an arrest
was warranted and that the matter should have been referred to the GCPO.
72. As the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Gloucester County assigned to handle
the administrative internal investigation and employee discipline, Dalton was required to:
a. stay the internal affairs investigation;
b. stay the criminal investigation; and
c. proceed with the prosecution of the DUI and refusal charges in an adversarial setting
prior to pursuing the IA and the criminal charges, which were both initiated by
Moriarty.
73. Instead, and as a result of the scheme which resulted in the criminal charges Muniz
assisted Moriarty, Dalton instructed Hemphill to convert the IA investigation into a criminal
investigation.
74. As a result of the criminal charges, Plaintiff was suspended without pay.
75. On May 1, 2013, Dalton sought and obtained an indictment on the criminal charges
filed by Moriarty and a criminal action was instituted against Plaintiff.

-15-
76. After indicting the Plaintiff, the Gloucester County Prosecutor moved improperly
and successfully to dismiss all charges against Moriarty.
77. At all times, Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally failed to follow the instruction of
the Attorney General in handling the administrative investigation.
78. On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff was acquitted of all criminal charges.
79. Pursuant to the Attorney General Guidelines on police officer administrative
internal affairs investigations and police discipline, a police department may proceed with
administrative charges following the disposition of criminal charges against a police officer.
80. Due to the conflict of interest which prevented the WTPD and Muniz from fairly
and impartially handling the IA, Dalton was the person responsible for the internal affairs
investigation and any resulting administrative charges.
81. In other cases where there has been a conflict of interest in the municipality police
department investigating an officer, Dalton has intervened in the administrative matter as the
county Chief Law Enforcement Officer and taken over the internal investigation and disciplinary
process.
82. Dalton was at all times aware of his obligation, duty and responsibility to conduct
a fair and impartial internal. affairs investigation, to issue findings on the internal affairs
investigation and determine whether there would be any administrative charges against the officer
following the acquittal.

-16-
83. Following the acquittal, Defendant Muniz contacted Dalton through a private email
server instead of his authorized Township email account and requested permission to move
forward with the internal affairs investigation, from which he had already been removed as a result
of a conflict of interest. See Exhibit B.
84. In direct contravention of the instructions and guidelines issued and published by
the Attorney General and in violation of his own duties and responsibilities, on March 6, 2015,
Dalton abandoned his role as the person responsible for the IA and any administrative charges and
granted Muniz authority to proceed with the departmental internal affairs investigation and
administrative charges against Plaintiff.
85. Defendant Dalton unlawfiilly authorized Defendant Muniz to proceed with the
internal affairs investigation in direct contravention. of the Attorney General's instruction and
guideline that all such investigations shall be objectively investigated by a fair and impartial.
investigator with actual kno`vledge that Muniz and his department had a conflict of interest that
resulted in their removal from the investigation at its very inception.
86. Defendant Muniz had no authority to allow Muniz and the WTPD to proceed with
an IA investigation and administrative charges against Plaintiff.
87. Defendant Muniz proceeded with his internal affairs investigation in direct
contravention of Attorney General's instruction and guideline that all such investigations shall be
-17-
objectively investigated by a fair and impartial investigator and after his admitted conflict of
interest in conducting the investigation.
88. In addition to the self-admitted conflict of interest Muniz identified in his August
13, 2012 letter, Muniz had a conflict of interest stemming from Plaintiffs complaint that he
purposely mishandled the investigation involving his son, which resulted in criminal charges
against his son.
89. Defendant Dalton was well aware of the significant conflicts of interest which
should have precluded the Washington Township Police Department Defendant Muniz from any
involvement with the internal affairs investigation of the Moriarty Complaints.
90. Despite that knowledge, and in direct violation of Plaintiff's rights to a fair,
impartial and objective internal affairs investigation, Dalton violated his duties and responsibilities
as the chieflaw enforcement officer of Gloucester County to plaintiff's severe personal detriment.
91. Dalton knew or should have known that any investigation by Muniz and WTPD
would be tainted and geared to terminated the plaintiff from his employment as a police officer.
92. Due to the political affiliation between Muniz, Moriarty and Dalton, Dalton
arbitrarily and intentionally favored Moriarty in connection with the charges against him, which
resulted in the dismissal of the DUI and refusal.
93. Due to the political affiliation between Muniz, Moriarty and Dalton, Muniz and
Dalton arbitrarily and intentionally treated Plaintiff unfavorably in connection with the scheme
~~~
described above, the Moriarty IA, and criminal charges and in failing to stay the IA pending the
adjudication of the criminal charges.
94. As a direct result of Defendant Dalton authorizing Muniz and the WTPD to proceed
with its investigation and administrative process, Plaintiff was the victim of a result driven
investigation which led to a recommendation of administrative charges, which Defendant Muniz
approved. and sought termination.
95. Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as a result of the administrative
charges which were pursued by Muniz and the WTPD.
96. Plaintiff had a right to an impartial and fair investigation which defendants denied
him. N.J.S.A 40A:14-181.
97. Plaintiff also had ,a right not to be removed from his employment for political
reasons. N.J.S.A 40A:14-147.
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
UNDER THE NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION
AND PURSUANT TO THE NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
98. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
99. At all tunes defendants were acting under color of law.
100. Defendants conduct was intended to interfere with Plaintiff's substantive due
-19-
process secured to him under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
101. Defendants' conduct subjected plaintiff to the deprivation of substantive due
process secured to him under the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
102. There is no rational or legitimate basis for Muniz's request to move forward with a
departmental internal affairs investigation and for Dalton's abdication of his own responsibility to
conduct the investigation and administrative process.
103. Defendants' conduct denied Plaintiffs' right to a fair and impartial investigation of
the internal affairs complaint.
104. Defendants' conduct which led to the termination of Plaintiff's employment was
motivated by ill will, maliciousness and unlawful purpose
105. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary losses, and
emotional pain and suffering, as set forth herein.
106. Defendants' as complained of above were willful, wanton, malicious, and/or were
made in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs civil rights and Plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of
punitive damages.
WHEREFORE,Plaintiff respectfillly requests this Court enter a judgment in his favor:

(a) Awarding him compensatory damages;
(b) Awarding him punitive damages;
(c) Awarding him attorileys' fees and costs of this action: and
(d) Granting other such relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDMENT

RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM POLITICAL RETALIATION
UNDER 42 U.S.0 ~ 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANTS
-20-
full.
108. The manner in which the plaintiff was treated and his IA and charges were handled
by Defendants was politically motivated.
109. All of Defendants' actions as taken toward plaintiff were taken under color of state
law.
110. By subjecting Plaintiff to a retaliation based upon political motivation, Defendants
violated Plaintiffs right as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
1 11. Defendants' actions were taken in deliberate indifference to plaintiff's well
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that the scheme to
charge plaintiff and allow Moriarty to escape liability was illegal and that their actions were not
reasonable under the law as established at the time they took said actions.
1 12. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe pecuniary losses,
and emotional pain and suffering, as set forth herein.
1 13. Defendants' actions as complained of above were willful, wanton, malicious, and/or were
made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive an award of
punitive damages.
WHEREFORE,plaintiffrespectfully requests that this court enter ajudgment in his

favor:
(a) awarding hiln back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement;
(b) awarding hiln compensatory damages;
-21-
(c) awarding him punitive damages;

(d) awarding him attorneys fees and costs of this action: and
(e) granting other such relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
damages;
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
UNDER 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
1 14. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
full.
1 15. Plaintiffs actions of arresting and charging Moriarty, a public official, with DUI
and refusal dealt with a matter of public concern.
1 16. Plaintiff's interest in the speech outweighed any interest Defendants had in
promoting the efficiency of the public service it provides. Plaintiff's complaints therefore
constituted protected activity under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
1 17. Defendants conduct as set forth above toward plaintiff was motivated by
plaintiff's protected activity.
1 18. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
1 19. Defendants' actions were taken in deliberate indifference to plaintiff's well
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions of
-22-
scheming to charge plaintiff with crimes before the adjudication of the DUI and refusal and in
proceeding with and authorizing Muniz the administrative discipline and investigation process in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity was illegal and not reasonable under the law as
established at the time they took said action. Their actions therefore constituted a violation of
plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under
42 U.S.C. 1983.
120. Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct result of defendants' unlawful actions,
including lost pay and emotional distress.
121. Defendant's actions as complained of above were willful, wanton, malicious,
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil. rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
an award of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment in his
favor:
(a) a`varding him back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement;
(b) awarding him compensatory damages;
(c) awarding hiln punitive damages;
(d) awarding him attorneys fees and costs of this action: and
COUNT IV
-23-
DENIAL FO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

UNDER 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
~~f
123. Plaintiff was entitled to a fair and impartial administrative process including the
investigation and discipline process.
124. By ignoring the instructions regarding the manner in which the DUI and refusal
charges should have proceeded and instead charging plaintiff and dismissing the charges against
Moriarty, Defendants denied certain processes to which plaintiff was entitled, including a fair
and impartial investigation and administrative process.
125. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
126. Defendants' actions were taken in deliberate indifference to plaintiffs well
established rights under the law. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions of
scheming to charge plaintiff with crimes before the adjudication of the DUI and refusal and in
proceeding with and authorizing Muniz the administrative discipline and investigation process in
retaliation for engaging in protected activity was illegal and not reasonable under the law as
established at the time they took said action. Their actions therefore constituted a violation of
plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under
42 U.S.C. ~ 1983.
-24-
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment in his
favor:
(a) awarding him back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement;
(c) awarding him punitive damages;
(d) awarding him attorneys' fees and costs of this action: and
COUNT V
EQUAL PROTECTION
CLASS OF ONE
UNDER 42 U.S.C.$ 1983
AGAINST DEFENDANT DALTON IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
full.
130. Plaintiff has been intentionally treated differently than others similarly situated in
the internal affairs and administrative process by Dalton authorizing Muniz to conduct the
-25-
internal affairs investigation and administrative process after the conflict of interest was
acknowledged.
131. There is no rational basis for the different treatment.
132. Defendants' actions, as complained of above, were taken under color of state law.
133. Defendants' actions were taken in deliberate indifference to plaintiffs well
established rights under the law. Defendant knew or should have known that his actions of
authorizing Muniz to proceed with the administrative discipline and investigation process was
unlawful and not reasonable under the law as established at the time he took said action.
134. Defendant's actions therefore constituted a violation of plaintiff's rights to equal
protection under the U.S. Constitution and results in liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
and/or were made in reckless disregard of plaintiff's civil rights and plaintiff is entitled to receive
WHEREFORE,plaintiff respectfully requests that this court enter a judgment in his

favor:
(a) awarding him back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement;

-26-
(c) awarding hiin punitive damages;
(d) awarding him attorneys' fees and costs of this action: and
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that demand is hereby made by the Plaintiff for a Trial
by Jury as to all issues of this cause of action.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, Jczcgzceline M.

Vigilante, Esgzcir~e, is hereby designated as trial counsel in the above-captioned matter on
behalf of Plaintiff.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the hatter in controversy in this action is not the subject ofany
other action pending in any other court or of a pending arbitration proceeding and no other
action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated. I forth c rtify that I am unaware of
any other persons who should be named as parties in t 's acti r~~ ~ /
Dated: June 15, 2017 By; t~~_~ -/// ~"

Tac zc li e M. Vigilante, Esgzciye
R. J. Hughes Justice Complex FILED
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 J UL 0 ? 2017
Jean B, McMaster, J.S.0
B y: Benjamin H. Zieman (082712013)
(609)292-1575
Benjamin.Zieman@dol.lps.state.nj.us
JOSEPH DIBUONAVENTURA, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION - GLOUCESTER COUNTY
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO. GLO-L-285-17
v.
Civil Action
in their individual and ORDER DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS
official capacities, AGAINST DEFENDANT DALTON WITH
PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-2
Defendants.
This matter having been opened to the Court on application
of CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY,
attorney for Defendant Gloucester County Prosecutor Sean F.
Dalton; Benjamin H. Zieman, Deputy Attorney General, appearing;
and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support
herein, along with any opposition, and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this ~ day of ~~ ~ 2017;
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss all claims against
Defendant valton pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) is hereby GRANTED; and
it is further
1
ORDERED that all claims against Defendant Dalton in
Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
it is further
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on all
parties within ~ days of its receipt by the moving party.
s >/~
rr
J.S.C.
Jean 8.11~cM~ster,J.S.C.
In accordance with the required statement pursuant to R.
1:6-2(a), this motion was opposed_ unopposed.
Pursuant to R. 1:6-2(f), the Court has made findings of
fact and conclusions of law expla'ning its disposition of the
motion which are written oral and were rendered on the
following date s )
tP~ ~~ ~ I~Ec~,~,

Lawsuit Filed by Joseph DiBuonaventura

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lawsuit Filed by Joseph DiBuonaventura

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:17-cv-05120-RMB-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1

By: Benjamin H. Zieman (ID: 082712013)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

HON. ________________, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. _________

SEAN F. DALTON, RAFAEL MUNIZ,

TO: United States District Court

Jacqueline M. Vigilante, Esq.

Patrick J. Madden, Esq.

This Notice of Removal having been opened to the Court by

counsel CHRISTOPHER S. PORRINO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY,

Deputy Attorney General Benjamin H. Zieman appearing on behalf of

Defendant, Sean F. Dalton, in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. 1446 respectfully shows that:

1. Sean F. Dalton is a defendant in a civil action brought

in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester

County, entitled: DiBuonaventura v. Dalton, et al., bearing

Gloucester County Docket Number GLO-L-285-17.

2. Plaintiffs original complaint was filed on March 3,

2017, and only alleged violations of the New Jersey Constitution

10:6-2(c). A copy of the original complaint is attached hereto as

3. On May 24, 2017, Defendant Dalton moved to dismiss the

original complaint for failure to state a claim, which was made

returnable on June 9, 2017. A copy of Defendant Daltons notice of

motion is attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.

4. After counsel for Defendant Dalton consented to

Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file an opposition

brief, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which was served on

counsel for Defendant Dalton on June 15, 2017. A copy of this

it was received by counsel for Defendant Dalton, is attached hereto

5. On June 22, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff advised the

amended complaint in response to Defendant Daltons motion to

dismiss rendered that motion moot. A copy of this letter is

attached hereto as EXHIBIT D.

6. Nevertheless, on July 7, 2017, the Gloucester County

Superior Court entered an Order granting Defendant Daltons motion

to dismiss with prejudice. Because Defendant Daltons motion should

have been dismissed as moot on the filing of Plaintiffs amended

complaint, this Order is void. A copy of this Order is attached

7. The United States District Court has original

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, which

in turn means this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), because the amended complaint

is the first pleading in which Plaintiff asserted federal

constitutional claims actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

8. This Notice of Removal is timely filed, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1446(b)(1) and (3), allowing Defendant Dalton to remove,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction, since it is filed within thirty (30) days of receipt

by counsel for Defendant Dalton of a copy of the amended complaint.

9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(2)(A), Mr. Patrick J.

Madden, Esq., counsel for co-defendant Rafael Muniz, has consented

to the removal of this action.

10. In accordance with L. Civ. R. 11.2, the present matter in

controversy is related to two other matters pending the Superior

Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County: (1)

DiBuonaventura v. Washington Township, et al., bearing Gloucester

County Docket Number GLO-L-1435-13 before the Honorable David W.

Morgan, J.S.C.; and (2) DiBuonaventura v. Washington Township,

bearing Gloucester County Docket Number GLO-L-503-15. In accordance

with L. Civ. R. 11.2 and 28 U.S.C. 1746, the undersigned declares

under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Dalton (with the consent of counsel for