Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117040
| D.N.J. | 2011Background
- Six African American owned bus companies allege racial profiling in New Jersey bus-safety inspections and improper impoundment at Atlantic City; plaintiffs sue State Defendants (Schulze, Colorel) and the NJ Motor Vehicle Commission and NJDOT, plus Jimmy's Lakeside Garage and Restuccio for discriminatory enforcement and conversion (Bus 203).
- The Bus Safety Compliance Act governs impoundment duration and on-site vs. tow repairs; the Act does not specify selection methods for inspections; plaintiffs allege race-based targeting and higher violation/impound rates for their buses.
- The action was narrowed to claims against State and Garage Defendants; prior rulings dismissed sovereign immunity and certain state-law injunctive relief, leaving federal equal protection, §1981, §1985, and NJCRA claims viable.
- Fourteen-plus motions were addressed, including several to strike experts; the court evaluated limitations, discovery tolling, discriminatory intent, and the scope of potential liability for supervisory officials.
- Key issues include whether New Jersey’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations applies to damages, whether the continuing violation doctrine or discovery rule tolls apply, whether there is triable evidence of discriminatory purpose/animus, and the extent of liability of state actors and private defendants for alleged discrimination and conversion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness; relation back to 2005 complaint | Plaintiffs' 2006 additions relate back. | Relief requires identity of proper party; no relation back. | Claims of 2006 additions do not relate back to 2005 filing. |
| Continuing violation vs. discovery rule for racial profiling | Discriminatory pattern accrues under continuing violation; discovery tolls until awareness. | Limited applicability outside employment; discrete stops accrue separately. | Continued accrual not applicable to this race-based, discrete-stop context; discovery rule limited relevance. |
| Evidence of discriminatory purpose and effect against State Defendants | Race of owners known; disparate stops and scrutiny show discriminatory purpose. | Evidence insufficient to prove purposeful discrimination beyond neutral processes. | Sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment on equal protection against State Defendants. |
| Fabricated violations and impoundment theory against State/Garage | Some evidence of intentional targeting and coercive impounds; conspiracy claims. | Fabrication insufficient; damages and conspiracy limited. | Partial summary judgment for State Defendants on fabrication evidence; conspiracy claims proceed in part. |
| NJCRA due process and cross-claims against Garage Defendants | NJCRA claims survive; due process issues raised. | Procedural due process not cognizable under NJCRA; cross-claims lack grounding. | NJCRA due process claim dismissed as to State Defendants; some NJCRA equal protection claims survive; cross-claims resolved in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation framework for hostile environment claims; accrual principles)
- Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 177 N.J. 263? 729 A.2d 1006 (N.J. 1999) (continuing violation and daily basis standard in NJ context)
- Roa v. LAFE, 200 N.J. 555 (N.J. 2010) (continues to govern continuing violation limitations in NJ Supreme Court context)
- Dique v. Mulvey, 603 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2010) (discovery rule tolling for selective enforcement actions under §1983)
- Green v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 177 N.J. 434 (N.J. 2003) (application of Morgan principles to NJ discrimination claims)