Joshua Park v. Dimitri Tsiavos
679 F. App'x 120
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joshua Park, a regular recreational basketball player at Cho Dae Presbyterian Church’s gym, was assaulted during a game on June 13, 2012; Park alleges racial comments by attackers.
- Park sued: (1) premises liability (Church); (2) § 1985(3) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (Dimitri Tsaivos and John Does); (3) negligence, assault, battery (Tsaivos); and (4) negligent supervision (Tsaivos’s parents).
- District Court granted summary judgment for the Church on premises liability (invoking New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act) and for defendants on the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim; it then declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
- Park appealed; the Third Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and jurisdictional findings for clear error where appropriate.
- The Third Circuit affirms: finds the Church immune under the Charitable Immunity Act, holds Park’s § 1985(3) claim fails because no right protected from private impairment is alleged, and upholds the District Court’s discretionary decline of supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Church is immune from premises-liability under NJ Charitable Immunity Act | Park argued he was not protected by charitable immunity (claimed not an invitee/unrelated) | Church argued gym use was a charitable benefaction and Park was a beneficiary | Held: Church immune — Park was a beneficiary using church’s recreational facilities; no evidence of profit motive |
| Whether § 1985(3) conspiracy claim survives summary judgment (racial animus) | Park argued disputed evidence of racial animus should go to jury | Defendants argued § 1985(3) requires violation of a right protected against private impairment and no such right is alleged | Held: Dismissed — Park failed to identify a constitutionally protected right against private interference (§ 1985(3) limited) |
| Whether federal court had diversity jurisdiction over state-law claims | Park argued he was domiciled in New York (college attendance) to create diversity | Defendants showed Park remained domiciled in New Jersey (tax returns, license, family home) | Held: No diversity — Park remained a New Jersey domiciliary at filing |
| Whether District Court erred by granting summary judgment on one state claim while declining supplemental jurisdiction over others | Park argued inconsistent/contradictory exercise of jurisdiction | Defendants argued § 1367(c) dismissal is discretionary and courts may retain jurisdiction over some claims and decline others | Held: No error — discretionary decline of supplemental jurisdiction and prior summary judgment on a state claim was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, 842 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment noted)
- Hardwicke v. Am. Boychoir Sch., 902 A.2d 900 (N.J. 2006) (elements for charitable immunity application)
- Bieker v. Cmty. House of Moorestown, 777 A.2d 37 (N.J. 2001) (charitable purpose includes providing social/recreational facilities)
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (§ 1985(3) requires a right protected against private impairment)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (§ 1985(3) can cover private conspiracies in limited circumstances)
- Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789 (3d Cir. 2001) (interpretation that § 1985(3) applies in limited circumstances to avoid a general federal tort law)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (private discriminatory conduct is generally not redressed by the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 1999) (district court may exercise jurisdiction over some claims and decline supplemental jurisdiction over others)
- Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 805 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for § 1367(c) decline)