MICHAEL DANIELE VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-0807-12, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (L-10204-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2472-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Michael Daniele previously prevailed in a 2007 CEPA action against the State Police; a jury found he had engaged in protected whistleblowing and awarded damages.
- In 2012 Daniele filed a new CEPA complaint against the same defendants alleging continued retaliation (denial of promotions) causally linked to his successful 2007 CEPA suit.
- The trial court questioned whether merely referencing the earlier complaint/judgment without repleading the underlying whistleblowing facts stated a CEPA claim.
- After briefing and oral argument on the eve of trial, the court dismissed the 2012 complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim.
- Daniele’s motion for reconsideration was denied; he appealed. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 complaint sufficiently alleged a CEPA claim by referencing the prior 2007 CEPA verdict | Daniele argued the 2012 complaint properly relied on the earlier adjudicated whistleblowing to show protected activity and causal nexus to subsequent retaliation | State argued simple reference to the prior complaint/judgment without restating the underlying whistleblowing facts failed to plead protected activity under CEPA | Reversed: reference to the prior CEPA judgment alleging causally related retaliation was adequate to survive dismissal under Rule 4:6-2(e) given liberal construction of CEPA; case remanded (no prejudice dismissal) |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice on the eve of trial was procedurally proper | Daniele contended dismissal with prejudice denied due process and was improper | State defended dismissal for failure to state a claim | Court expressed serious reservations about the procedure but did not decide procedural due process issue because it reversed on pleading adequacy grounds |
| Whether the 2012 complaint stated a Petition Clause claim | Daniele asserted a Petition Clause claim based on filing/prevailing in the earlier suit and alleged reprisals | State disputed viability | Appellate Division declined to reach the constitutional Petition Clause question as unnecessary to disposition |
| Whether amendment should have been permitted instead of dismissal with prejudice | Daniele implied amendment should be allowed to clarify allegations | State maintained complaint was insufficient as pled | Court noted if insufficient detail existed the trial court should have allowed amendment rather than dismissing with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- NL Industries, Inc. v. State, 442 N.J. Super. 403 (App. Div. 2015) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
- Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div.) (same)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (motion to dismiss standard; give plaintiff benefit of allegations)
- Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (CEPA remedial purpose and prima facie elements)
- Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (articulation of CEPA prima facie requirements)
- Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Const. Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76 (procedural concerns about dismissing on eve of trial)
- Randolph Town Ctr., L.P. v. County of Morris, 186 N.J. 78 (avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings)