Background
Lagano was fatally shot in East Brunswick, NJ, on April 12, 2007, after a BCPO-organized crime investigation.
Estate sues BCPO and former Chief Mordaga (among others) alleging disclosure of Lagano as an informant caused his murder and seeking NJCRA and §1983/§1985 claims.
December 1, 2004, BCPO search of Lagano’s home yielded over $50,000 and other assets; further seizures occurred at Lagano’s safe deposit boxes.
Lagano allegedly was pressured to hire a specific attorney; later, Mordaga allegedly urged Lagano to hire that attorney under false assurances.
Estate relies on the Sweeney Complaint (2010) and subsequent emails to Superior showing potential motive for Lagano’s murder; the District Court dismissed the claims, leading to appeal.
Estate amended the complaint (Dec. 12, 2012) to drop the State of NJ as a defendant but keep Counts 1–3; appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are BCPO and Mordaga 'persons' under §1983/§1985/NJCRA? | Estate contends they are not immune as arms of the State and are subject to suit. | District Court treated BCPO as an arm of the State, not a 'person'. | Court vacates dismissal; BCPO and Mordaga can be sued as 'persons' under §1983/§1985 and NJCRA. |
| Is the BCPO entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity? | State immunity analysis should apply Fitchik factors; BCPO not shielded if not the real party in interest. | District Court relied on Coleman to treat BCPO as a state arm; immunity may bar claims. | Remanded to apply Fitchik framework; Eleventh Amendment issue not resolved on the record. |
| Is Mordaga entitled to qualified immunity on the state-created danger claim? | District Court misinterpreted the right; state-created danger is clearly established and may apply to informant disclosures. | Right not clearly established for confidential informants; dismissal warranted. | Qualified immunity vacated; Court will reassess whether the facts fit the state-created danger framework. |
| Did Count 3 (unreasonable searches and seizures) accrue within the statute of limitations? | Accrual occurred with Sweeney complaint filing in 2010; later actions timely. | Accrual occurred by 2005–2007 when Lagano or estate knew of the seizure; barred by 2-year limit. | Count 3 barred by statute of limitations; dismissed. |
| Should the Estate be allowed to amend the complaint on remand? | District Court should permit curative amendment unless futile or inequitable. | Not contested in record here; dismissal was with prejudice. | Remand to permit a second amended complaint unless futility is shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials in official capacity not 'persons' for §1983)
- Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491 (3d Cir. 1996) (whether prosecutors act as state or county officials; arms-of-state analysis)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (state officials may be sued in personal capacity)
- Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199 (3d Cir. 1996) (state-created danger viable theory for due process violation)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law can be shown by closely related precedent)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual for §1983 claims; damages-based trigger)
- Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (accrual and statute of limitations in §1983 claims in NJ context)
- Fitchik v. N.J. Transit Rail Ops., 873 F.2d 655 (3d Cir. 1989) (three-factor test for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity)
- Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (see above Will citation for 'person' status)