SHARIFI v. EAST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PARASTU SHARIF],

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No, 21-7965 (RK) IBD)

. OPINION

EAST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP, DAVID

LEVY, and MAX SHUMANOV,

Defendants.

KIRSCH, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants East Windsor Township (the

“Township”), David Levy (“Levy”), and Max Shumanov’s (“Shumanov”) (collectively,

“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defs. Mot.,’ ECF No. 73), and pro se Plaintiff

Parastu Sharifi’s (“Plaintiff”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, (“PI. Mot.,” ECF No. 74),

The Court has considered the parties’ submissions and resolves the matter without oral argument

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth

below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff originally filed suit on January 21, 2021 against Defendants in New Jersey

Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer County. (See ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, on April 2, 2021,

Defendants removed this matter to federal court.' (/d.) On April 13, Plaintiff filed her First

' Defendants assert that they were not served until March 3, 2021. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 3.) On May 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended

Complaint, adding the Mercer County Board of Taxation (the “Board’’) as an additional Defendant.

(“SAC,” ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff asserted claims of racial discrimination, intentional and negligent

infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent property tax assessment arising out of Defendants’

alleged unlawful search of her property and levying of property taxes on her condominium. (See

generally, id.) Defendants answered on June 13, (ECF No. 40), whereas the Board moved to

dismiss the SAC on August 12, (ECF No. 46).

Once the Board’s Motion was fully briefed, the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J.

granted the Board’s Motion and dismissed Plaintiff's claims against it. (ECF Nos. 53, 54.) Judge

Quraishi held that the Tax Injunction Act (the “TIA”) divested the federal court of jurisdiction to

hear Plaintiff's claims against the Board, as the TIA “prohibits district courts from enjoining,

suspending, or restraining the collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and

efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” (ECF No. 53 at 5.) In his Opinion, Judge

Quraishi took judicial notice of Plaintiffs suit against the Board in New Jersey Tax Court. (/d. at

6.) He thus found that the New Jersey forum provided Plaintiff with a “a sufficiently plain, speedy,

and efficient remedy” to challenge the alleged unfair taxes levied upon her. (/d. at 6.) Because

Plaintiff had “an adequate remedy” in the Tax Court, “the TIA divest[ed] [the district court] of its

jurisdiction against the Tax Board,” and Judge Quraishi dismissed the claims against the Board.

(d.) In addition, Judge Quraishi denied Plaintiff's Motion For Recusal as to himself, (id. at 3-4),

and a separate motion to recuse the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. who was previously

assigned to this matter, (id. at 4).

Following the close of fact discovery, both Plaintiff and Defendants filed Motions for

Summary Judgment. (See ECF Nos. 73 and 74.) Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’ s

Motion, (ECF No. 75), and Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ Motion, (ECF Nos. 79, 80).

Defendants also filed a reply brief in support of their Motion. (ECF No. 81.) In support of their

Motion, Defendants filed a Statement of Facts, (“Defs. SOF,” ECF No. 73-3). Plaintiff also

submitted a Statement of Facts in support of her Motion. (“Pl. SOF,” ECF No. 74 at 8-23.)

Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts. (“Defs. Resp. To Pl. SOF,” (ECF No.

B. Factual Background

I. Inspection of Plaintiff's Unit

This action stems from Plaintiff's dispute with her town and its employees relating to her

condominium and its taxes. Plaintiff, an Iranian-American, is the owner of 23-13 Old Millstone

Drive, East Windsor, New Jersey, a unit that is part of the Windsor Regency Condominium

Association (“Windsor Regency”). (See Defs. SOF 1-3; “Sharifi Dep. Tr.,” ECF No. 73-2, Ex.

B at 10:12—-18; 14:15—20; Pl. SOF § 1.) Plaintiff purchased the unit in August 2004 and lived there

for just over one year until moving and renting out the unit. (Sharifi Dep. Tr. 14:15—20; 16:1-16;

PI]. SOF { 1.)

In February 2020, a cockroach infestation broke out at Windsor Regency. (ECF No. 73-2,

Ex. G.) Defendant Shumanov, a “Registered Environmental Health Officer” with the Township of

* The Court notes Plaintiff did not file “a responsive statement of material facts, addressing each paragraph

of the movant’s statement, indicating agreement or disagreement,’ pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56,1(a) in

opposition to Defendants’ Statement of Facts. A party’s failure to contest results in “any material fact not

disputed shall be deemed undisputed for purposes of the summary judgment motion,” L, Civ. R. 56.1(a);

see Contreras y. United States, No. 19-12870, 2022 WL 970192, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2022) (plaintiffs

failure to submit a response to the defendant’s statement of facts resulted in “each of the thirty-three facts

set forth in the [defendant’s facts] be deemed admitted and undisputed for purposes of this Motion”); Owens

v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-6663, 2012 WL 6761818, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 31, 2012) (Without

compliance with the Rule, the Court is left to sift through often voluminous submissions in search of-

sometimes in vain-the undisputed material facts.””). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s significant lapse, the Court

has ventured to parse the record to identify any facts in dispute.

East Windsor, contacted Plaintiff and requested to inspect her condominium. (Pl. SOF § 6; ECF

No. 73-2, Ex. G.) Shumanov inspected the unit on February 28, 2020 and found no evidence of

any infestation. (ECF No. 73-2, Ex. G.) In December 2020, another such outbreak occurred at

Windsor Regency. (ECF No. 73-2, Ex. I.) Numerous residents complained, believing that the

infestation was originating from Plaintiff's unit. Ud.) As such, Windsor Regency management

contacted Defendants regarding the infestation. (Pl. SOF § 9.) Shumanov, thereafter, on December

11, 2020, contacted Plaintiff and requested access to inspect her unit again. Ud. J 8.) Plaintiff,

however, refused to grant access. (/d.) Plaintiff and Shumanov exchanged email correspondence

in which Shumanov again requested access to Plaintiff's unit and made clear his intent to search

multiple units in Windsor Regency, not just Plaintiff's, in order to find the cause of the infestation.

(ECF No. 73-2, Ex. M.) Plaintiff again denied the request. Ud.; see also ECF No, 73-2, Ex. O

(Plaintiff again denying Shumanov access).) Subsequently, on February 11, 2020, Plaintiff was

served with a Notice of Violation, pursuant to East Windsor Township Ordinance 13-3.3, based

on her refusal to allow Defendants to inspect her property.? (Defs. SOF 36~37; Pl. SOF ¥ 16;

ECF No. 73-2, Ex. R.)

2. Plaintiff's Property Tax Assessment

Defendant Levy is the tax assessor for the township of East Windsor. (Defs. SOF ¥ 39.) In

this role, Levy is responsible for valuing residential property in the town. (Jd. § 40.) On March 24,

2021, Plaintiff filed a tax assessment appeal. (See Sharifi Dep. Tr. 186:11—22.) On August 20,

2021, Plaintiff filed an action in in New Jersey Tax Court. (See Sharifi v. Twp. of E. Windsor, No.

> The ordinance states, in relevant part, that the “housing officer/inspector is directed to make inspections

to determine the conditions of the dwellings, dwelling units... in the township in order that he may

perform his duty of safeguarding the health and safety of the occupants of dwellings and of the general

public. . . . The owner or occupant of every dwelling, dwelling unit... shall give the housing

officer/inspector .. . free access at all times for the purpose of making such inspection .. . ”’ (ECF No. 73-

2, Ex. R.)

011729-2021 (N.J. Tax Ct.).) Plaintiff contends Defendants lowered the property tax assessments

for wealthy homeowners of a different race than Plaintiff but not for Plaintiff, thus racially

discriminating against her. (See Pl. SOF. 28-31; Sharifi Dep. Tr. 198:2—15.)

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the Court should grant summary judgment

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must “view[] the facts in

the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered.” Marino vy.

Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322-23 (1986)). A “material fact” is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A “genuine dispute”

about a fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “In considering a motion for summary judgment, a

district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence;

instead, the nonmoving party’s evidence ‘is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be

drawn in his favor.’” Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F. 3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing its right to

summary judgment. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. To show that a material fact is not

genuinely disputed, it “must... citle] to particular parts of materials in the record, including

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations

(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or

other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). The moving party may also meet its burden by

&

“showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or

that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1)(B). Once the movant meets its threshold burden under Rule 56, the non-moving party

must present evidence to establish a genuine issue as to a material fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S, at

248; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)

(the non-movant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to

material facts.’).

Oil. DISCUSSION

Defendants move for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. (See generally, “Defs.

Br.,” ECF No. 73-1.) First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs claim under Title II of the Civil Rights

Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-2, is not a cognizable cause of action under these

circumstances. Ud. at 4-6.) As such, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claim must fail and

summary judgment is warranted. Ud.) Likewise, Defendants claim that 31 U.S.C. § 6711, also

referenced in Plaintiffs Complaint, “has no application to the instant lawsuit.” (/d. at 6.) Second,

Defendant claims that Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated as no search of her

property took place. U/d. at 7-8.) Third, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claims related to her

property tax assessment—including her claims that she was discriminated against in same—are

barred by the Tax Injunction Act (the “TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Ud. at 8-12.) Finally, Defendants

argue that Plaintiff's common law claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress are barred due to Plaintiffs failure to file a notice of claim under the New Jersey Tort

Claims Act (“NJTCA” or the “Act’’). Ud. at 12-14.) Moreover, the tort claims, Defendants

contend, must fail as Plaintiff failed to proffer any evidence of a permanent medical injury. (/d. at

14-15.)

In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that Defendants “racially target[ed]

certain groups of residents by abusing their powers and discretion” and “failed to properly

supervise the actions and decisions of their employees, and to implement anti discrimination [sic]

policies or to enforce any existing policies if there are any.” (Pl. Mot. at 8-9.) Plaintiff contends

that Defendants have violated both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions by “favor[ing]

or unfavor[ing] [sic] the residents and citizens based on their race and financial status.” Ud. at 9.)

The Court addresses each of Plaintiffs claims in turn.

A. CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FEDERAL STATUTES

In Count One, Plaintiff asserts a claim of racial discrimination against Defendants under

two separate and distinct federal statutes—42 U.S.C. § 2000a-2 and 31 U.S.C. § 6711. GAC □

24~38.)* Plaintiff also asserts a claim for an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment

of the United States Constitution. V/d.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated her Fourth

Amendment rights and racially discriminated against her when they repeatedly requested to search

her apartment. (Id. J] 28-38.)

Plaintiff first alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. This statute prohibits discrimination

in public spaces. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. It states: “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any

* In addition to failing to comply with to Local Civil Rule 56.1(a), as she must, the Court notes that the

complaint is difficult to discern, factually skeletal, and appears to group together distinct statutory,

constitutional and common law claims in singular counts. For example, in Count One, Plaintiff groups

together claims under two federal statutes, the United States Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution.

(See SAC F¥ 24-38.) However, given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has pursued to interpret the SAC

with a high degree of liberality. See Cason v. Middlesex Cnty. Prosecutors’ Off., No. 18-2101, 2022 WL

2871195, at *3 (D.N.J. July 21, 2022) (A pro se plaintiff’s complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” (quoting Montgomery v. Pinchak,

294 F.3d 492, 500 (3d Cir. 2002)).

> Plaintiff also asserts claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution, which the

Court discusses infra.

74

place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation

on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). The statute

expressly delineates the “covered establishments” to which it pertains. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b).

These include, inter alia, an “inn, hotel, motel, ... restaurant, lunchroom, . .. gasoline station, . .

. [and] sports arena.” Jd. As neither a condominium, nor a township,® are established covered by

the statute, Plaintiff cannot assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. See Farmer v. Am.

Home Med. Equip. & Servs., Inc., No. 16-6211, 2018 WL 878367, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14,

2018); McCrea v. Saks, Inc., No. 00-1936, 2000 WL 1912726, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2000)

(“[E]stablishments not listed in Section 2000a(b)(2) should not be read into that provision.”). As

such, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. §

2000a.

Plaintiff next seeks to assert a claim under 31 U.S.C. § 6711, a statute which is wholly

unrelated to any of the supposed allegations of misdeeds here. This statute concerns payments

from the federal government to local governments regarding “education to prevent crime;”

“substance abuse treatment to prevent crime;” or “job programs to prevent crime.” 31 U.S.C. §

6701(a)(2). It provides: “No person in the United States shall be excluded from participating in,

be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under, a program or activity of a unit of

general local government because of race, color, national origin, or sex if the government receives

a payment under this chapter.” 31 U.S.C. § 6711(a). Aside from simply referencing this statute, in

the SAC’s opening paragraph and again in the heading of “First Cause of Action,” leveled among

° In her opposition brief to Defendants’ Motion, Plaintiff contends that “East Windsor Township is the

‘place of public accommodation.’” (ECF No. 80 at 11.) Even assuming arguendo Plaintiff argued that her

condominium was a place of public accommodation, her claim would also fail. See Welsh v. Boy Scouts of

Am., 993 F.2d 1267, 1274 (7th Cir. 1993) (“A private home is not the type of facility governed under Title

r....”).

other statutory and constitutional violations, Plaintiff makes no additional factual or legal claims

relating to 31 U.S.C. § 6711. (See SAC at 1, 5.)’

Prior to asserting suit under this statute, a plaintiff must exhaust their administrative

remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 6716(b).

Not only is the record devoid of any evidence that Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies,

but Plaintiffs allegations of discriminatory tax practices or unlawful search are inapposite to the

claimed statute.® See Jackson v. Rosen, No. 20-2842, 2020 WL 3498131, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 26,

2020) (holding 31 U.S.C. § 6711 not applicable where Plaintiff’ allegations of race discrimination

did not concern crime prevention). Therefore, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on

Plaintiff's claim under 31 U.S.C. § 6711.

In addition, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States

Constitution pertaining to an alleged unconstitutional search of her property. As referenced above,

Plaintiff contends that “[t]he requests to revisit the Plaintiff’s unit” to search for cockroaches

violated “Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion

and searches.” (SAC { 28.) To establish a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff “must show that

the defendants 1) were state actors who 2) violated [her] rights under the Constitution or federal

law.” Benn v. Universal Health Sys., Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 169-70 (3d Cir. 2004). “To establish an

unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that the

defendant’s actions: (1) constituted a ‘search’ or ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment, and (2) were ‘unreasonable’ in light of the surrounding circumstances.” Kailie v.

7 The SAC contains multiple paragraphs numbered one through four. As such, in this instance, the Court

refers to the page numbers of the SAC.

® Due to the lack of factual allegations in the SAC, it is not clear to the Court the circumstances that allegedly

gave rise to a violation of this statute.

Sweet, No. 13-4792, 2017 WL 1734027, at *3 (D.N.J. May 3, 2017) (quoting Williams v. Temple

Univ., No, 04-831, 2011 WL 2516234, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2011)). As a threshold matter,

“Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not

implicated unless a search or seizure occurs.” United States v. Ridgeway, No. 15-238, 2016 WL

4429933, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2016) (citing United States v. Brown, 448 F.3d 239, 245 (3d

Cir. 2006)).

In the case at bar, Plaintiff admits there was no search. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants “requests” to visit Plaintiff's unit violated the Fourth Amendment. (SAC § 28.) As

Plaintiff states, Defendants reached out to inspect her unit for a second time in December 2020,

but Plaintiff “referred [Shumanov] [to] his precious inspection ... and declined his request to

revisit the unit.” (Pl. SOF 8.) Plaintiff continued to deny Defendants’ requests to reinspect the

unit. (See id. § 16.) As such, Defendants never revisited Plaintiff’s condominium, no search

occurred, and no Fourth Amendment violation was committed. See Ridgeway, 2016 WL 4429933,

at *4. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiffs Fourth

Amendment claim.?

B. INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

In Count Two, Plaintiff asserts claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

distress. (See SAC 39-45.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants undertook their actions in this

matter intentionally and such actions caused “great monetary and mental anguish, shock, mistrust,

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a Fourth Amendment claim related to Defendants’ first visit to

her unit, Plaintiff noted she “agreed” to this visit, (see Pl. SOF ¥ 6), and there is no allegation, nor does the

record show, that her consent was not voluntary, see United States v. Bonner, No. 09-0072, 2010 WL

1628989, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2010), aff'd, 469 F. App’x 119 (3d Cir, 2012) (“One who voluntarily

consents to a search or seizure, however, cannot later assert that his or her Fourth Amendment rights were

violated.” (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)).

nN

feelings of helplessness and desperation, sleepless nights, anxiety, and other severe emotional

distress.” Ud. | 44.)

The New Jersey Torts Claims Act (the “Act’’) governs tort actions against the government

and its employees. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:1-1 et seq. Pursuant to the Act, a plaintiff seeking to

assert tort claims against a state entity or its employees must file a notice of claim within 90 days

of the tort claim’s occurrence. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-8; see also Cnty. Concrete Corp. v. Town of

Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159, 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (“To bring an action in tort against a ‘public entity or

public employee’ in New Jersey, the claimant must file a notice of claim with the entity within

ninety days of the accrual of the claim... .” (citation omitted)). If a plaintiff fails to file a notice

within the 90-day period, “the claimant shall be forever barred from recovering against a public

entity or public employee.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-8. A plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse its

non-compliance with the notice requirement of the NJTCA. See Sexton v. New Jersey Dep’t of

Corr., No. 21-20404, 2023 WL 8868810, at *12 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2023) (barring tort claims

brought by a pro se plaintiff for failing to file notice of tort claim); Love v. Edison Townwship, No.

22-3275, 2023 WL 3597674, at *8 (D.N.J. May 23, 2023) (same).

A narrow exception to the above rule exists for “extraordinary circumstances” wherein “[a]

claimant who fails to file notice of his claim within 90 days... may, in the discretion of a judge

of the Superior Court, be permitted to file such notice at any time within one year after the accrual

of his claim... .” See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-9. In no circumstances, however, can a plaintiff seek

to file a late notice two years after the accrual of the tort claim. Jd.

In the case at bar, the record is devoid of any evidence that Plaintiff filed a notice of tort

claim. Plaintiff fails to allege that she filed the requisite notice within 90 days of her claims

accruing, nor does she allege that she sought an extension to file a late notice. Moreover, Plaintiff

14

has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances prevented her from filing a timely tort

notice. Finally, over two years have passed since Plaintiff's claims accrued. The majority of

Plaintiff’s factual allegations occurred in 2019 and 2020, (see e.g., Pl. SOF FJ 3-9), with the latest

allegation, concerning her property taxes, occurring in January 2022, (see id. J 35). As such,

Plaintiff is well outside the two-year time frame with which to apply for a notice of a late claim.

See NJ. St. Ann. § 59:8-9. Because Plaintiff failed to file the requisite notice, Plaintiff is barred

from asserting her tort claims. See Sexton, 2023 WL 8868810, at *12. Therefore, the Court grants

Defendants’ summary judgment on the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress

claims,!°

C. CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFE’S TAX ASSESSMENT

With respect to her property taxes, Plaintiff asserts claims in Counts One and Three

concerning a discriminatory and fraudulent property tax assessment. In Count One, Plaintiff asserts

claims for racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

and Article VIII of the New Jersey Constitution. (SAC {ff 24-38.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

discriminated against her by requiring her to pay higher taxes than wealthier homeowners of other

races. (Ud. 31-38.) In Count Three, Plaintiff asserts a claim for fraudulent property tax

assessment. (See id. J§ 46-52.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants “hike[d] [] the property

10 Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions relating to its tax assessment caused the

torts, the Act states:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused

by:

a. Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding or action for or

incidental to the assessment or collection of a tax.

b, An act or omission in the interpretation or application of any law

relating to a tax.

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:7-2. As such, the Act explicitly precludes Plaintiff from asserting a tort claim for an

injury relating a tax.

19

taxes... of some targeted condominium complexes ... to earn extra revenue from property

tax[es].” Ud. 47.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants “harass[ed]” and undertook other

“fraudulent conduct,” as well discriminately and selectively approved decreases in property taxes

in violation of both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. (/d. 48-50.)

As Judge Quraishi explained in his previous Opinion, (ECF No. 53), Plaintiff’s SAC

“seeks an order from this Court to enjoin the Tax Board from doing its statutorily required duties

of reviewing property tax appeals and overseeing municipal tax assessors,” (id. at 6.) Judge

Quraishi held that the TIA “divests federal courts of jurisdiction unless the state fails to provide a

‘plain, speedy and efficient’ remedy in court.” (id. at 5 (quoting Gass v. Cnty of Alleghany, 371

F.3d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2004)). Since the Second Amended Complaint contained no allegations that

the New Jersey courts failed to provide such a process to Plaintiff, Plaintiff had an adequateremedy □□

available to her and therefore the TIA barred Plaintiff from asserting her claims in federal court.

(Id. at 6.)

The Court finds no reason to overrule Judge Quraishi’s previous analysis and holding. See

In re Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 279 F.3d 226, 233 (3d Cir. 2002) (explaining that under the law of the

case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern

the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus.

Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988)); Scudder v. Colgate Palmolive Co., No. 16-7433,

2018 WL 4188456, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2018) (“The law of the case doctrine ‘limits relitigation

of an issue once it has been decided’ in the same case or litigation.” (quoting Hoffman v. City of

Bethlehem, 739 F. App’x 144, 150 (3d Cur. June 20, 2018)).

The Court again takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff has availed herself of the Tax

Court of New Jersey, as she filed suit in same. See Sharifi v. Twp. of E. Windsor, No. 011729-2021

12

(N.J. Tax Ct.). In her case, the Tax Court ruled in favor of the Township following a trial on the

merits. (See January 10, 2023 Order, Sharifi v. Twp. of FE. Windsor, No. 011729-2021 (N.J. Tax

Ct.).) Rulings of the Tax Court are “appealable to the Appellate Division and thereafter to the New

Jersey Supreme Court.” See also Frybarger v. New Jersey Dep't of Treasury, No. 05-4648, 2006

WL 3827331, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2006) (citing Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules 2:2—3(a)(1),

2:2—1(b)). Plaintiff, however, chose not to appeal the decision of the Tax Court, despite such a

remedy being available to her. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims related to

Defendants’ property tax assessment are barred by the TIA. See Gass, 371 F.3d at 137.

Moreover, the Third Circuit has elucidated that the TIA does not “require that the state

courts provide a favorable substantive outcome; instead, it only requires access to the state courts

and an opportunity for meaningful review.” Gass, 371 F.3d at 139; see also Frybarger, 2006 WL

3827331, at *3 (“Federal courts must decline jurisdiction in state tax cases where the State gives

the plaintiff a procedure by which to have his/her claims heard. The availability of the specific

remedy sought is not relevant.”). This declination applies to the Township, the Mercer County

Board of Taxation (previously dismissed by Judge Quraishi), and any individual who may

effectuate the taxes, See Zygmunt v. Fulmer, No. 10-2486, 2011 WL 13880, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 3,

2011) (dismissing complaint against individual director of state taxation division as such suit was

barred under the TIA).

This analysis also applies to Plaintiff's claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

pertaining to Defendants’ alleged racial discriminatory tax assessment. As one district court

explained, “[t]axpayers who bring claims alleging violations of constitutional rights ‘must seek

protection of their federal rights by state remedies, provided of course that those remedies are

plain, adequate, and complete[.]’” Edouard v. City of Long Branch, No, 17-3582, 2022 WL

1A

4586420, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2022) (quoting Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, 454 U.S. at

116, 102 S.Ct. 177)). Like the plaintiff in City of Long Branch, Plaintiff “takes issue with

[Defendants’] method in determining [her] assessment for property tax purposes ... Boiled down,

Plaintiffs discrimination claim is a challenge to the state’s tax collection procedure.” Jd. at *3. As

such, the TIA bars consideration of same. /d.; see also Reagle v. Elliott, 80 F. App’x 737, 738 Gd

Cir. 2003) (holding TIA barred consideration of plaintiff's Section 1983 claims pertaining to

plaintiff’ s tax assessment).!"

Finally, Plaintiff asserts a claim under Article VIH, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the New

Jersey Constitution. (SAC J¥ 24-38.) This is commonly known as the “Uniformity Clause.” See

W. Orange Twp. v. Crest Ridge Realty LLC, No. 648-2020, 2023 WL 4247265, at *8 (N.J. Tax Ct.

June 28, 2023). The New Jersey Tax Court has “jurisdiction to hear any tax-related matters over

which the Superior Court would have jurisdiction, [and] the Tax Court [can] correct an

unconstitutional assessment.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, 671 A.2d 560, 566 (N.J. 1996).

As such, the state court provides “an opportunity for meaningful review” of Plaintiff's claim under

the Uniformity Clause, and the Court must decline jurisdiction over same. Gass, 371 F.3d at 139,

Therefore, the Court grants Defendants summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action in

Counts One and Three of Plaintiffs Complaint.

"| Moreover, there is no evidence in the record, aside from Plaintiff's own unsubstantiated speculation, that

Plaintiffs race has in any way impacted her property tax assessments. This conjecture does not raise a

genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment. See Williams v. Rowan Univ., No. 10-6542,

2014 WL 7011162, at *15 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2014) (“An inference based upon speculation or conjecture does

not create a material factual dispute sufficient to defeat entry of summary judgment” (quoting Johnson v.

Multi—Solutions, Inc., 493 F. App’x 289, 292 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012))); Skoorka v. Kean Univ., No. 16-

3842, 2018 WL 3122331, at *14 (D.N.J. June 26, 2018) (finding no inference of discrimination where

Plaintiff “point[ed] to no other evidence—not even a stray derogatory remark” aside from subjective belief

that actions were grounded in discrimination).

1£

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED,

and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Judgment for Defendants will be

entered. An appropriate Order will accompany this Opinion. en

owe GF on )

ROBERT KIRSCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 12, 2024

16