Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Irving v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

February 26, 2019

DALE M. IRVING, Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY and BURLINGTON COUNTY ADJUSTER in his official and individual capacity, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD W. STORY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [15] and Plaintiff's Motion to File Excess Pages [16]. After reviewing the record, the Court enters the following Order.

         Background

          Plaintiff Dale M. Irving filed this lawsuit against the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, New Jersey (“Burlington County”) and the Burlington County Adjuster (“the Adjuster”) for violations of his civil rights and libel.

         I. Plaintiff's Claims

         Plaintiff alleges that, about 15 years ago, he moved from Burlington County to Gwinnett County, Georgia. (Am. Compl., Dkt. [12] ¶ 9.) In 2012, Plaintiff obtained a 5-year “weapons carry license” from the Gwinnett County Probate Court. (Id. ¶ 11.) When Plaintiff applied to have his license renewed in 2017, however, he learned that, sometime between then and 2012, “Burlington County had placed with the NICS a derogatory record that Plaintiff had been committed by a court in Burlington County for a mental defect.” (Id. ¶ 13.) As a result, Plaintiff was not able to renew his license. (Id.)

         Plaintiff alleges that the information in NICS is false and that Defendants are responsible for its dissemination. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) Specifically, Plaintiff says that Defendants failed to implement appropriate policies and procedures to prevent commitments that were overturned, like Plaintiff's, from ending up on NICS, and that Burlington County failed to properly train and supervise the Adjuster to prevent the publication of such false information. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 18-20.)

         Based on this conduct, Plaintiff raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his rights under the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts 1-5), and a related state-law claim against the Adjuster for libel (Count 6). Defendants now move to dismiss, in part, because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.

         II. Plaintiff's Jurisdictional Allegations

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint scarcely addresses the Court's personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Aside from claiming “that the events and conduct complained of [in the Amended Complaint] all occurred in the Northern District [of Georgia], ” (Am. Compl., Dkt. [12] ¶ 2), Plaintiff provides only the following information: (1) Burlington County is a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey that provides local government services to its residents, (id. ¶ 7); and (2) the Adjuster is a county official responsible for assessing the financial status of those committed to facilities for mental health reasons and also for filing petitions with the courts related to such treatment, (id. ¶ 8).

         III. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

         In support of dismissal, Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and, alternatively, that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.

         In support of its conclusion that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, Defendants make two claims, supported by affidavit evidence-namely, the sworn testimony of Kendall J. Collins, the current County Solicitor/County Adjuster for Burlington County, (Dkt. [15-3].). First, neither the Adjuster nor Burlington County has sufficient contacts with Georgia to confer personal jurisdiction. Neither of them owns any property in the State. (Id. ¶ 2.) Nor do they transact business in Georgia or have contacts here. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.)

         Second, Defendants contend that the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in New Jersey, not Georgia. Specifically, Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, but assuming they were true, reason that any failure to train, supervise, or implement policies must have occurred in New Jersey where Defendants are located. (Id. ΒΆ 7.) And the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.