PARKER v. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KATRINA PARKER,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 19-8926 (MAS) (DEA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

B. SUE FULTON, et al.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants New Jersey Motor Vehicle

Commission (“NJMVC”) and B. Sue Fulton’s (“Fulton”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s December 31, 2019 Opinion. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff Katrina Parker

(“Plaintiff”) opposed (ECF No. 15), and Defendants replied with leave of the Court (ECF No. 19).

Defendants also submitted a supplemental letter brief with additional authority (ECF No. 20), to

which Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 21). The Court has carefully considered the parties’

submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For

the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

1. BACKGROUND

A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

On May 7, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim.

(Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7.) Defendants argued the following:

1. Plaintiff waived her right to judicial review of NJMVC’s decision to revoke her

passenger and school bus endorsements by failing to appeal the decision within

forty-five days of the August 17, 2018 letter, (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss

Br. 16-17, ECF No. 7-2);

2. Because the school bus endorsements were bestowed upon Plaintiff in error,

Plaintiff never had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property interest and,

therefore, failed to state a claim, (id. at 17—20);

3. The Eleventh Amendment barred Plaintiff's claims under the New Jersey Civil

Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Due Process

Clause because NJMVC is protected as an arm of the state, (id. at 20-25);!

4. Plaintiff's § 1983 and ADA claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff sought

money damages from the state, (id. at 22);

5. Plaintiff's Due Process claim is inappropriate because (1) the revocation letter gave

fair notice of the removal of the endorsements and (11) an administrative error does

not give Plaintiff a protectable interest, (id. at 22-23);

6. Injunctive relief was improper because this case “involves a claim that state

officials violated federal law in the discharge of their official duty[,]” not “ongoing

or threatened violations of federal law,” (id. at 25-26);

7. Declaratory relief was inappropriate because “there is no actual case or

controversy,” (id. at 27); and

8. The Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim for relief under the

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) because “there are no federal

claims from which the [s]tate law claim can append,” (id. at 28).

' Defendants conceded that Plaintiffs Rehabilitation Act claim is not barred by the Eleventh

Amendment. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Br. 22—23 n.10.)

B. The Court’s December 31, 2019 Opinion and Order

On December 31, 2019, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss. (Dec. 31, 2019 Order, ECF No. 13.) As a preliminary matter, the Court rejected

Defendants’ assertion that it could not entertain the suit and decided that judicial review was

appropriate. (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 4, ECF No. 12.) The Court next held that Defendants failed

to meet their burden to establish that Plaintiff was ineligible for the endorsements. (/d. at □□□□□

The Court reasoned that Defendants failed to show Plaintiff could not state a claim—and that

Plaintiff could have a property interest in the continued possession of the endorsements—because

“[a] person’s property interest may exist even where the property interest arises out of the state’s

error.” (/d. at 6 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 539 n.5 (1985)).) The

Court distinguished Defendants’ arguments relying upon Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564

(1972), finding that Plaintiff pleaded she possessed her endorsements for ten months, relied upon

them for her livelihood, and that they were valid and unexpired when they were revoked. (/d. at 7.)

The Court noted that Defendants’ argument relies upon a “retrospective fiction,” and to prevail on

a motion to dismiss, Defendants “must show that Plaintiff’s possession of the P&S Endorsements

was expressly prohibited by a statute or regulation.” (/d.)

The Court then discussed the relevant portions of the New Jersey Administrative Code and

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (““FMCSA”) exemptions. (/d. at 8.) The Court

held that “[t]he plain language of [the Code] does not clearly address Plaintiffs eligibility to hold

the [Passenger and School Bus] Endorsements [(‘P&S Endorsements’)]” and that Defendants

failed to direct the Court to any “state court decisions or administrative rulings that decide the

effect of an FMCSA exemption” on Plaintiffs eligibility to hold the P&S Endorsements. (/d. at

9.) The Court concluded that it was not necessary to determine the best interpretation of the

regulation because, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “Defendants must show that

the regulation expressly prohibits Plaintiffs eligibility for the P&S Endorsements.” (/d.) The

Court, accordingly, held that Defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion on the

procedural due process claim. (/d.)

The Court further held that, because Defendants are arms of the state and no exceptions

apply, the Eleventh Amendment precludes monetary relief for Plaintiff's procedural due process

and equal protection claims. (/d. at 11-12 (citing Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d

690, 697 (3d Cir. 1996)).) The Court declined to consider the issue of whether the Eleventh

Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claims under Title II of the ADA because Defendants did not

sufficiently discuss the issue. (/d. at 12.) The Court, accordingly, denied Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss the Title II claim. (/d.) Furthermore, the Court held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign

immunity precludes claims against NJMVC, but not claims against Fulton seeking injunctive

relief. Ud. at 12-13 (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)).) The Court then held that

Defendants failed to meet their burden to dismiss Plaintiffs claims seeking declaratory relief. (/d.

at 13.) Finally, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's NJLAD claim

because it was within the same controversy as the remaining federal claims. (/d.)

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Local Civil Rule 7.1 governs motions for reconsideration. Morton v. Fauver, No. 97-5127,

2011 WL 2975532, at *1 (D.N.J. July 21, 2011) (citing Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F. Supp. 2d 610,

612 (D.N.J. 2001)). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. /nterfaith

Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (D.N.J. 2002) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). There are three grounds for reconsideration: (1) to accommodate an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence that was previously

unavailable; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. /d. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

“A court commits clear error of law only if the record cannot support the findings that led

to the ruling.” Rich v. State, 294 F. Supp. 3d 266, 272 (D.N.J. 2018) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). “Thus, a party must do more than allege that portions of a ruling were erroneous

in order to obtain reconsideration of that ruling.” ABS Brokerage Servs., LLC v. Penson Fin. Servs.,

Inc., No. 09-4590, 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (D.N.J. Aug. 15, 2010). A moving party’s “[m]ere

disagreement with the Court’s decision” is insufficient to show a clear error of law. /d. (citation

omitted).

A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new matters or arguments that

could have been raised before the original decision was made. See Bowers, 130 F. Supp. 2d at

612-13. Nor is a motion for reconsideration an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has

already thought through. /nterfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. “Rather, the rule permits

a reconsideration only when ‘dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law’ were

presented to the court but were overlooked.” /d. (quoting Resorts Int’l v. Greate Bay Hotel &

Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831 (D.N.J. 1992)). “The fact that an issue was not explicitly mentioned

by the court does not on its own entail that the court overlooked the matter in its initial

consideration.” Morton, 2011 WL 2975532, at *3.

Ii. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on

the validity of Plaintiff’s property interest in the endorsements.

In Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim

because “[P]laintiff never had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the property interest.” (Defs.’

Mot. Dismiss Br. 17.) Defendants further argued that “the State’s erroneous action in granting the

Endorsements did not give [P]laintiff a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ to the Endorsements, and

thus cannot support a claim for relief as a matter of law.” (/d. at 20 (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577).)

The Court considered Defendants’ arguments at length and distinguished this matter from

Roth, holding that Plaintiff's endorsements “were valid and unexpired when they were revoked,

whereas in Roth, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a protected

property interest . . . beyond the termination date expressly stated in his contract.” (Dec. 31, 2019

Mem. Op. 7.) The Court also discussed cases where “[a] person’s property interest may exist even

where the property interest arises out of the state’s error.” (/d. at 6 (citing Loudermill, 470 U.S. at

539 n. 5; DelSignore v. DiCenzo, 767 F. Supp. 423, 426 (D.R.I. 1991)).)

In the instant motion, Defendants do not distinguish nor dispute the precedent the Court

relied upon in its Opinion. Rather, Defendants disagree with the Court’s conclusion that the

endorsements were valid when they were revoked. (Defs.’ Moving Br. 2, ECF No. 14-1.)

Defendants argue that the Court “failed to fully analyze the legal issue involved” in determining

the Endorsements’ validity because “validity is not a statement of fact but rather . . . a conclusion

of law.” Ud.) Defendants state that the endorsements were issued “in contravention of the

applicable regulations because New Jersey does not recognize the FMCSA hearing requirement

waiver[.]” Ud.) In support, Defendants direct the Court to N.J. Admin. Code § 13:60-2.1(b) and

N.J. Admin. Code § 13:60-2.1(d), which adopt Part 391—the “Driver Qualifications” portion of

the FMCSA—but not Part 381—the “Waiver and Exemptions” portion. (/d.)

Here, Defendants’ arguments were already raised or should have been raised previously.

The Court considered the validity of the endorsements and determined that Plaintiff may have a

protected property interest. The Court explained that, in order to support their contention that

Plaintiff was never entitled to hold the endorsements, Defendants must show that Plaintiffs

possession was expressly prohibited by a statute or regulation, which Defendants failed to do.

(Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 7-9); see ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010 WL 3257992, at *6 (stating that

“[m]ere disagreement with the Court’s decision” is insufficient for reconsideration). Defendants

fail to discuss the precedent cited by the Court, much less show clear error. Because the Court has

already considered this issue at length, the Court did not overlook Defendants’ arguments.

Defendants, therefore, fail to show a clear error of law, and the Court denies Defendants’ Motion

for Reconsideration as to the validity of the endorsements.

B. Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on

whether the endorsements were essential to Plaintiff’s livelihood.

Defendants also assert that the Court erred in finding that the endorsements were essential

to Plaintiffs livelihood because Plaintiff “was able to drive a commercial vehicle,” albeit without

passengers. (Defs.’ Moving Br. 3.) Furthermore, Defendants state that the endorsements should

not be considered “essential” because “[P ]laintiff simply sought an ‘upgrade’ to her job as opposed

to being denied the means of earning a living.” (/d. at 4 (distinguishing Plaintiff's case from Bell

v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971)).) Defendants, however, made no arguments in their Motion to

Dismiss as to whether Plaintiff’ livelihood was affected by the erroneously granted endorsements.

In its Opinion, the Court extensively discussed the issue of Plaintiff’s livelihood and relied

on relevant and persuasive case law that Defendants failed to include or discuss in their Motion to

Dismiss. (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 6 (citing Bell, 402 U.S. at 539; cf Spinelli v. City of N.Y., 579

F.3d 160, 169 (2d Cir. 2009); Hampton Co. Nat’l Sur., LLC v. Tunica Cty., 543 F.3d 221, 225 (Sth

Cir. 2008); Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1150 (10th Cir. 2001).)

The Court held that “Plaintiff possessed her P&S Endorsements for ten months[,] . . . [and] relied

upon those [Endorsements] for her livelihood, as she used them to obtain employment as a bus

driver.” (/d. at 7.)

A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise new matters or arguments that

should have been raised before the original decision was made. See Bowers, 130 F. Supp. 2d

at 612-13. Nor is it an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought through.

Interfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. The Court considered Be// and found that Defendants

failed to meet their burden to show that the endorsements were not essential to Plaintiff's

livelihood. Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider whether the P&S Endorsements were

essential for Plaintiffs livelihood.

C, Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on

whether the New Jersey Administrative Code adopted the FMCSA’s

exceptions.

In Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argued that “[t]he [NJMVC] erroneously

bestowed a benefit on [P]laintiff [by] placing [P&S Endorsements] on her commercial driver’s

license that she was not entitled to receive.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss Br. 19-20 (noting that “New

Jersey does not have a waiver of any of the Part 391.41 medical requirements,” including for

hearing).) Defendants further argued that “[P]laintiff is flatly wrong in stating that the governing

state regulations adopted Part 381” because “Part 381 is not listed” in the New Jersey

Administrative Code. (Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss Reply Br. 4, ECF No. 11.) Defendants then argued the

Court should find that the State did not adopt the federal waiver exemptions. (See id. at 5—6.)

The Court considered Defendants’ arguments, the New Jersey Administrative Code, and

the FMCSA regulations, and held that Defendants failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff is expressly

prohibited from obtaining the endorsements. (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 8-9.) The Court stated that

the “plain language of N.J. Admin. Code § 13:21-14.5 does not clearly address Plaintiff's

eligibility to hold the P&S Endorsements” and that “the Court is unaware of any New Jersey state

court decisions or administrative rulings that decide the effect of an FMCSA exception, and

Defendants fail to provide any.” (/d. at 9.)

The Court declined to determine the best interpretation of the regulations upon a motion to

dismiss because Defendants failed to demonstrate that the regulation “expressly prohibits

Plaintiffs eligibility for the P&S Endorsements.” (/d. at 6, 9); see also Rosario-Torres v.

Hernandez-Colon, 889 F.2d 314, 319 (1st Cir. 1989) (noting that a plaintiff’s interest is protected

unless a controlling statute or regulation expressly prohibits a plaintiff from acquiring the interest

in the first place); cf One Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame, Unknown

Caliber, Serial No. LW001804, 115 F. Supp. 3d 544, 572-74 (E.D. Pa. 2015), aff'd 822 F.3d 136

(3d Cir. 2016).

Here, Defendants argue that “the Court overlooked or misapprehended Defendants’

argument that the correct legal test is whether [N.J. Admin. Code §] 13:21-14.5 .. . answers the

question presented.” (Defs.’ Moving Br. 4.) Defendants argue that this regulation, as well as the

omission of Part 381, shows that “the federal waiver mechanism for interstate driving is

unavailable to New Jersey drivers who drive intrastate.” (/d. at 5.) Defendants further contend that

the Court’s analysis should have been “guided by the core principal of ‘adoption and incorporation

by reference[,|’” rather than by “discerning the ‘best interpretation’ of .. . [the] regulations.” (Ud.

at 6-7.) Defendants then direct the Court to 49 C.F.R. § 350.341, which they argue “prohibit[s]

New Jersey from exempting a bus from its laws or regulations applicable to intrastate driving.”

(id. at 8.)

Here, the Court finds that Defendants raise the same arguments from their original motion.

A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to ask the Court to rethink what it has already

thought through. Jnterfaith Cmty. Org., 215 F. Supp. 2d at 507. The Court, accordingly, denies

Defendants’ motion to reconsider whether Defendants have met their burden of proof to show that

the State’s regulations expressly prohibit Plaintiff’s eligibility for the endorsements.

D. Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on

the allocation of the burden of proof.

Defendants also dispute the Court’s allocation of the burden of proof, arguing that “in

issues of public safety, the burden always remains on plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception to

the rule is warranted.” (Defs.’ Moving Br. 5—6.) In support, Defendants direct the Court to several

cases from other jurisdictions that were not decided upon a motion to dismiss. (/d. (citing Jowa

Utils. Bd. v. F.C.C., 120 F.3d 753, 802 (8th Cir. 1997); Shrader v. Harris, 631 F.2d 297, 302 (4th

Cir. 1980); Asplundeth Tree Expert Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 185 P.3d 646, 650-51 (Wash.

Ct. App. 2008); Larrison v. Larrison, 919 A.2d 852, 858-59 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)).)

In its Opinion, the Court stated that “Defendants fail[ed] to meet their burden to show that

Plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim.” (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 9.) Here, it seems

as though Defendants confuse the burden of proof of public safety exemptions with the burden of

persuasion necessary to prevail on a motion to dismiss. The Court’s Opinion referred to

Defendants’ burden of showing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. Thus, to the extent that

Defendants argue the Court committed a clear error of law, the Court finds that Defendants fail to

demonstrate grounds for reconsideration.

E. Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on

sovereign immunity for Fulton.

Finally, Defendants dispute the Court’s rejection of Eleventh Amendment sovereign

immunity for Fulton on claims seeking injunctive relief. (Defs.’ Moving Br. 9-10.) In their Motion

to Dismiss, Defendants argued that injunctive relief is improper because Plaintiff seeks only

retroactive relief rather than “ongoing or threatened violations of federal law.” (Defs.’ Mot.

Dismiss Br. 25-26.)

The Court determined that Plaintiff sought reinstatement of the P&S Endorsements, which

“Is properly characterized as a request for prospective relief.” (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 13.) The

10

Court, accordingly, applied the Ex Parte Young exception and held that Plaintiffs claims for

injunctive relief against Fulton were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (/d.) The Court,

however, dismissed Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief against NIMVC because “[t]he Ex Parte

Young exception . . . only applies to ‘state officials.’” Ud.)

Seeking reconsideration, Defendants assert that the Court “was led into error when it held

that the Ex Parte Young exception . . . saves [P]laintiff’s injunctive claims against [D]efendant

Fulton.” (Defs.’ Moving Br. 9.) Defendants state that, although the Court acknowledged that

Fulton was sued in her official capacity, it “inexplicably declined to apply Eleventh Amendment

immunity to ‘officers of state agencies acting in their official capacity.’” (/d. at 9-10.) Defendants

argue that “[i]f the Court’s analysis were correct, any plaintiff could avoid the imposition of

Eleventh Amendment immunity by the simple expedient of also naming the Administrator of the

relevant [s]tate agency as a separate, individual defendant[.]” (/d. at 10.)

In a supplemental letter brief filed after their Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants direct

the court to Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Governor of New Jersey, 961 F.3d 234

(3d Cir. 2020), for the proposition that the Ex Parte Young exception should not apply to Fulton.

(See generally Defs.’ June 25, 2020 Letter Br., ECF No. 20.) In Waterfront Commission, the Third

Circuit held that the Ex Parte Young exception does not apply to a suit brought against the

Governor of New Jersey because the relief sought would “have an adverse impact on the State of

New Jersey’s treasury and compel the State to perform.” 961 F.3d at 241. In its reasoning, the

Third Circuit noted, “[a] State 1s generally the real, substantial party in interest if the judgment

sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with public

administration, or... such relief consists of an injunction requiring the payment of funds from the

11

State’s treasury, or an order for specific performance of a State’s contract.” /d. at 239 (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive and fails to show grounds for reconsideration.

In its Opinion, the Court explained that the Ex Parte Young exception applies to injunctive relief

that seeks to remedy ongoing violations of federal law, including such prospective relief as

reinstating Plaintiffs P&S Endorsements. (See Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op. 12-13.); see also

Pascarella v. Swift Transp. Co., 643 F. Supp. 2d 639, 648-49 (D.N.J. 2009) (holding reinstatement

of a commercial driver’s license is the “type of injunctive, forward-looking relief cognizable under

Ex Parte Young” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Defendants’ assertion amounts

to mere disagreement with the Court’s decision and fails to demonstrate clear error of law. See

ABS Brokerage Servs., 2010WL 3257992, at *6.

Additionally, to the extent that Defendants attempt to use Waterfront Commission to show

an intervening change in the law or that the Court made a clear error of law, this argument also

fails. Waterfront Commission does not alter application of the Ex Parte Young exception.

Furthermore, “Plaintiff seeks an injunction that would restore the validity of her P&S

Endorsements [or] provide the opportunity for a pre-revocation review.” (Dec. 31, 2019 Mem. Op.

12 (citing Compl. §29, ECF No. 1).) Unlike Waterfront Commission, Defendants do not

demonstrate how Plaintiff's injunctive relief requires “the payment of funds from the State’s

treasury, or an order for specific performance of a State’s contract.” 961 F.3d at 239 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court, accordingly, finds that Defendants fail to

demonstrate grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s holding on sovereign immunity for Fulton.

12

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The

Court will issue an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.

fads, af

MICHAEL A. SHIPP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13