SALVADOR v. CITY OF UNION CITY
2:24-cv-06288
| D.N.J. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Salvador and AGVS Holdings own an apartment building in Union City, NJ.
- A series of disputes arose following AGVS's purchase of the property, including alleged disrespectful calls from city officials and subsequent complaints by Salvador.
- Salvador alleges retaliatory actions by Mayor Stack and Health Director Velazquez, including repeated handbill distributions and numerous health code violations at the property.
- Plaintiffs allege unauthorized entries by city officials and police into the property’s boiler rooms and ongoing surveillance.
- Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting eight counts: constitutional violations (First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; New Jersey Constitution), and violations of Union City's municipal code.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stack’s handbill distribution constituted state action for § 1983/NJCRA claims | Stack used his official position for campaign activity, thus acting under color of law | Campaigning is private conduct, not state action | Private conduct; not state action. Claims dismissed |
| Validity of constitutional claims regarding unauthorized search and health code violations | Entry and violations were pretextual, retaliatory, and constitutionally improper | Actions justified by emergency aid doctrine and insufficient facts alleged | Insufficient factual support; claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Existence of an implied private right of action under Union City municipal code | Municipal codes create an implied private right of action | No express or implied private right of action exists | No private right; counts dismissed with prejudice |
| Sufficiency of facts pled for municipal or individual liability under § 1983 | Pattern of official conduct shows policy/custom or individual misconduct | No policy/custom alleged; officials entitled to qualified immunity | No sufficient allegations; claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement for plausible, not speculative, allegations)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state action and "under color of law" requirement for § 1983)
- United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966) (defining "under color of law" in § 1983 context)
- Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (private conduct generally not actionable under § 1983)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency aid exception to warrant requirement)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (emergency aid doctrine for warrantless entry)