United States District Court, D. New Jersey
PETER MONFORTE, et al. Plaintiffs,
WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, et al. Defendants.
JOSE L. LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendants Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (the "Commission") and Jason Szober (collectively "Defendants")' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Court has considered the submissions made in support of and in opposition to the instant motion and decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.
In 1953, the Commission was created by way of the Waterfront Commission Compact, an interstate agreement between New York and New Jersey that was approved by Congress. Waterfront Comm'n Compact Between the States of N.Y. & N.J., Pub. L. No. 252-407, 67 Stat. 541 (1953). The Commission operates pursuant to the Waterfront Commission Act (the "Act"), which incorporates the terms of the Compact. N.J.S.A. § 32:23-1, et seq.; McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9801, et seq. The Commission's ongoing mission is to investigate and combat crime and corruption in the Port of New York (the "Port"). N.J.S.A. §§ 32:23-2 to -5, 32:23-10; McK. Unconsol. Laws §§ 9802-9805, 9810. The Commission has two powers that are relevant to this action.
First, the Commission decides who may work in the Port as a longshoreman. N.J.S.A. §§ 32:23-27 to -33; McK. Unconsol. Laws §§ 9827-9833. A person who wishes to work as a longshoreman within the Port must first apply for inclusion in the longshoremen's register. N.J.S.A. § 32:23-29; McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9829. The Commission may deny a person's application if his presence in the Port is found by the Commission to constitute a "danger to the public peace or safety." N.J.S.A. § 32:23-29(c); McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9829(c). The Commission may also remove a person's name from the longshoremen's register for a number of other reasons. See N.J.S.A. § 32:23-31; McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9831.
Second, the Commission decides what companies may operate as stevedores in the Port. N.J.S.A. §§ 32:23-19 to -24; McK. Unconsol. Laws §§ 9819-9824. A company that wishes to operate as a stevedore within the Port must first apply to the Commission for a stevedore license. N.J.S.A. § 32:23-19; McK. Unconsol. Laws. § 9819. In order to grant a license, the Commission must be satisfied that the applicant company possesses "good character and integrity." N.J.S.A. § 32:23-21(b); McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9821(b). Pending final action on the company's application for a stevedore license, the Commission may issue the company a temporary permit. N.J.S.A. § 32-23-22; McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9822. Once granted, the Commission may revoke or suspend a company's stevedore license as it "deems in the public interest." N.J.S.A. § 32:23-24; McK. Unconsol. Laws § 9824.
In March 2008, the Commission temporarily suspended Plaintiff Peter Monforte's registration to work on the waterfront because he was indicted for two drug crimes. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 14, 17, ECF No. 38-1; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 14, 17, ECF No. 40-1). Monforte eventually pled guilty to these crimes in September 2008, and was sentenced to three months in prison followed by a two-year term of supervised release. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 15-16; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 15-16). Monforte was released from prison in May 2009, and began working for Apexel, a stevedore company located in Port Newark, that month. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 18-19; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 18-19). Shortly thereafter, the Commission learned of Monforte's employment with Apexel. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 22-24; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 22-24)
By letter dated June 26, 2009, Defendant Jason Szober, an assistant counsel at the Commission, informed Apexel that the Commission would deny Apexel's application for a permanent stevedore license and revoke, cancel, or suspend Apexel's temporary stevedore permit if Apexel continued to employ Monforte. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 8, 24; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 8, 24). Szober explained that the Commission had temporarily suspended Monforte's registration, and that it considered Apexel's continued employment of Monforte as a reflection that Apexel lacked the requisite "good character and integrity" to possess a stevedore license. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 24; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 24). Apexel subsequently terminated Monforte, and he worked his last day in August 2009. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26; Defs.' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26).
On July 22, 2011, Plaintiffs Monforte and the union that represents him, the International Longshoreman's Association Local 1804-1 (the "Union"), filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County. (Compl., ECF No. 1). Defendants subsequently removed Plaintiffs' action to this Court on September 1, 2011. ( Id. ). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1) violated Monforte's civil rights; (2) singled out Monforte for exclusion from employment because of his Italian origin and ancestry, and, thereby, violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"); (3) tortiously interfered with Monforte's economic advantage; and (4) tortiously interfered with the Union's Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") with Apexel. ( Id. ). This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' "civil rights" claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Marina Bay Towers Urban Renewal II, L.P. v. City of N. Wildwood, No. 09-369, 2009 WL 2147356, *3 n. 7 (D.N.J. July 14, 2009) (finding existence of federal question jurisdiction where complaint asserted claim for "civil rights" without reference to constitutional or statutory provision); cf. Lazorko v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 237 F.3d 242, 248 (3d Cir. 2000) ("If a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's complaint, the defendant may remove the case to federal court."). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' NJLAD and tortious interference claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants now move for summary judgment. (Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 38).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no "genuine dispute as to any material fact" and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make "a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court must, however, consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995). If a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party regarding material disputed factual issues, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242-43 ("At the summary judgment stage, the trial judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.").
Defendants now move for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs' claims. With regard to Plaintiffs' civil rights and NJLAD claims, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs have failed to provide any supporting evidence. With regard to Plaintiffs' tortious interference claims, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot prove an essential element of these claims, namely, malice. The Court now explains why ...