Stolinski v. Pennypacker
772 F. Supp. 2d 626
D.N.J.2011Background
- Stolinski, a New Jersey State Police Sergeant, was indicted in 2005 on multiple counts related to credit card applications, including identity theft where an LG social security number allegedly was obtained.
- Investigators learned Stolinski used his business tax ID in place of a social security number on several applications, and that tax ID numerically matched LG's SSN.
- The Grand Jury returned an indictment including credit card fraud, official misconduct, and identity theft; Stolinski was suspended pending charges.
- Charges were dismissed in December 2005 after it was determined the tax ID matched LG's SSN, not Stolinski obtaining LG's information.
- Plaintiff then asserted state-law malicious prosecution and related claims against Pennypacker, Hurley, and Koshland, arguing malice and lack of probable cause in the multi-count indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey law permits malicious prosecution recovery for a multi-count indictment with probable cause for some counts. | Stolinski argues lack of probable cause for the identity theft count and malice by Pennypacker/Koshland. | Defendants contend probable cause existed for the major charges; only the identity theft count lacked probable cause. | Probable cause existed for credit card fraud and official misconduct; malicious prosecution fails. |
| Does malice require a shared mens rea among defendants for the entire suit under NJ law? | Plaintiff asserts malice through Pennypacker's grand jury testimony and supposed supervisor pressure. | Supervisors lacked malice; only Pennypacker's actions show some questionable intent. | No sufficient evidence of malice by supervisors; claim fails. |
| Is there lack of probable cause as to identity theft sufficient to sustain a malicious-prosecution claim? | Identity theft count lacked probable cause because tax ID explained, not LG's SSN. | Probable cause exists for other counts; count-by-count approach not warranted here. | Probable cause existed for other counts; not for identity theft, but overall claims fail. |
| Can proof of fabrication to the grand jury negate probable cause for related counts under NJ law? | Misleading grand jury testimony implicated lack of probable cause. | Probable cause is objective; fabricating evidence does not negate probable cause for other counts. | Objective probable cause exists for related counts; fabrication does not defeat those. |
| Are remaining federal claims (false arrest, conspiracy, abuse of process) viable? | Federal claims survive if malice or lack of probable cause is shown. | No viable federal claims; all asserted theories fail. | All related §1983 and state-law claims are dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lind v. Schmid, 67 N.J. 255 (1975) (probable cause concept in malicious prosecution is objective)
- Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit, 199 N.J. 381 (2009) (probable cause and investigation relevance in malicious-prosecution)
- Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (2009) (count-by-count vs general-proceeding probable cause in §1983)
- Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (2007) (count-by-count approach for malicious prosecution)
- Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (1991) (circumstances for count-by-count evaluation)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable cause as objective inquiry)