2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-21-2010 

# E ddy M ore au v

. W algree n C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3635

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " E ddy M or e au v

. W al gr e e n C o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 922. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/922NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3635

___________ E DDY M. M OR E AU,

A ppel l ant v . WALG RE E N C O.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 03347 (H on orabl e Jose L . L i nares)

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y16, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and V A N A S K IE, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y21, 2010 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. E ddyM or eau, pr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s tw o D i s tr i ctC our tor der s gr ant i ng the D efe ndant/ A ppel l ee W al gr een Co. ’ s ( “W al gr een’ s ”) m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand d e n y in g M o re a u ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f f i r m.U nl es s ot herw i s e not ed, the fa ct s as des cr i bed w er e notdi s put ed bythe part i es i n the 1 D istric t C o u rt. M oreau ad m i t s he has suff ered from dep res si on and schi zop hreni a si nce the 19 80 s. 2 2 I T h is case aro se f

rom a Ju n e 2 0 0 6 incid en t i n w h ich M o rea u v isi ted a W algre en ’s pharm acyi n B el l evi l l e, N ew J er s ey . M or eau e nt er ed the s t or e w i th a duff el bag, w hi ch 1 he pl ace d i n a s hoppi ng cart . Seufus M endez , the s t or e’ s as s i s t antm anage r , w i tnes s ed M o r e a u p l a c e s e v e r a l i t e ms i n th e c a r t . La t e r , M o r e a u a t t e mp t e d t o r e tu rn s o me i t e ms w i th a non- m at chi ng r ece i pt . M endez r emem ber ed thatM or eau ha d done the s ame t hi ng a dayortw o befor e, bel i eved thatM or eau w as runni ng a s cam, and r efus ed t o acc eptt he i t ems. M endez al s o not i ced thatM or eau’ s duffe l bag w as part i al l yfi l l ed, and ac cus ed M or eau of

s hopl i ft i ng. M or eau f

l ed, and M endez cont act ed the pol i ce. M or eau w as s t opped byan off

i cera s hor tw hi l e l at erand, aft erM endez i dent i fi ed hi m , M or eau w as arr es t ed fors hopl i ft i ng. D ur i ng m uni ci pal pr ocee di ngs abouttw o w eeks l at er , M endez agr eed t o dr op t he s hopl i ft i ng char ge aga i ns tM or eau i f he pr om i s ed nott o r eturn t o the s t or e. M or eau agr eed a nd the cha r ge w as di s m i s s ed. I n J ul y2006, M or eau f

i l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our t . H e al l eged thathe had notdone anythi ng w r ong atthe W al gr een’ s , and thatbycaus i ng hi m t o be arr es t ed, W al gr een’ s defa m ed hi m , caus ed hi m emot i onal di s tr es s , and aggr avat ed hi s pr eexi s t i ng m ent al i l l nes s . M or eau s ought$25 m i l l i on i n damages . W al gr een’ s fi l ed a mot i on for 23

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a ll th re e c la im s , a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n te d th e m o tio n . M o re a u f

iled a n u n su c c e ss f

u l m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , fo llo w e d b ya n o tice o f a p p e a l. II W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W hen r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ct court ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew , vi ew i ng the fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng party . See D ee v. B or ough of D unm or e, 549 F. 3d 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a p p lythe s am e stan d ard that g o v ern s in d istri ct co u rt proceed i ng s, un der w hich “a partyi s ent i t l ed to sum m aryj ud gm ent onl y‘i f t he p l eadings, depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the aff i davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng pa r tyi s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ’ ” I d. ( qu ot i ng Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ) . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yexer ci s ed di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e, w e appl ythe s ubs t ant i ve l aw of N ew J er s ey , the forum s t at e. See Laffe r tyv. St . R i el , 495 F . 3 d 7 2 , 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). R egar di ng M or eau’ s defa m at i on cl ai m , the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned that W al green’s w as ent i t l ed to sum m aryj ud gm ent based on N ew Jer sey ’s speci al i nter est pr i vi l ege. T he s peci al i nt er es tpr i vi l ege c r eat es a def ens e t o a cha r ge of de famat i on w hen th e p a rtyc o m m u n ica tin g h a s a n in ter e st in th e c o m m u n ica tio n a n d re late s th e a lleg e d ly d e f a m a to rysta tem e n t to a p e rso n w ith a c o rre sp o n d in g in ter e st o r d u ty . S e e G o v ito v .W e s t J e rs e yH e a lth S y s ., In c ., 7 5 3 A .2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 4 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 0 ).4

“The cr i t i cal el ement s of thi s t es tar e [1] the appr opr i at enes s of the occ as i on on w hi ch the d e f a m a to ryin f

o rm a tio n is p u b lish e d , [2 ] th e leg iti m a c yo f th e in ter e st th e re b yso u g h t to be pr ot ect ed orpr om ot ed, and [3] the pert i nence of the r ece i ptof thati nform at i on byt he r eci pi ent . ” B ai nhauerv. M anouki an, 520 A . 2d 1154, 1170 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1987) . H ow ever , a pl ai nt i ff mayover come t hi s pr i vi l ege bydemonstr at i ng thatthe d e f e n d a n t ab u se d it, i.e., th a t th e d e f e n d a n t “[ 1 ] k n o w s th e sta tem e n t is f a lse o r . . . a c ts in re c k les s d isre g a rd o f

its tru th o r f

a lsity ; [ 2 ] th e p u b lica tio n se rv e s a p u rp o se c o n tra ryto the i nt er es t s of the qual i fi ed pr i vi l ege; or[3] the s t at ementi s exce s s i vel ypubl i s hed. ” G o v ito , 7 5 3 A .2 d a t 7 2 6 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thateven i f M endez ’ s r eportt o the pol i ce thatM or eau w a s s h o p lif

tin g w a s d e f

a m a to ry, it c le a rl yf

e ll w ith in th e s p e c ia l in te re s t p ri v ile g e . W e a g re e . In N e w Je rse y , “c iti z e n s h a v e a q u a lifie d p riv ileg e to m a k e sta tem e n ts to author i t i es forthe pr event i on and det ect i on of cr i m e. ” D ai rySt or es , I nc. v. Sent i nel Publ ’ g C o. , 516 A . 2d 220, 226 ( N . J . 1986) . B efor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , M or eau di d not d isp u te th a t M e n d e z g e n u in e lyb e liev e d h e w a s s h o p liftin g . A lth o u g h M o re a u sta ted in hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der , openi ng br i ef, and r epl ybr i ef thatM endez w as l y i ng, M or eau pr es ent ed no evi dence i n t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatM endez ’ s conductfel l out s i de the s peci al i nt er es tpr i vi l ege. A s f o r M o re a u ’s e m o tio n a l d istre ss c laim , the D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t h e c o u ld notpr evai l on ei theran i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s theoryora negl i gent5

i nfl i ct i on of emot i on di s tr es s theory . I n negl i genti nfl i ct i on cas es , di s tr es s m us tbe gen uine and subst anti al . S ee D ecker v. P ri nceton P acket, Inc. , 56 1 A . 2d 11 22 , 11 28 (N . J. 1989) . W her e “c om pl ai nt s amount t o nothi ng m or e than aggr avat i on, embar r as s m ent , an u n s p e c i f i e d n u mb e ro f

h e a d a c h e s , a n d l o s s o f

s l e e p , ” s u c h d i s tr e s s i s , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, an insuffi ci ent basi s for l i abil i ty . Id. (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). In i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on cases, “forconductt o be ac t i onabl e, the emot i onal di s tr es s . . . m us tbe s o s ever e thatno r eas onabl e [pe r s on] coul d be expe ct ed t o endur e i t . ” Tar rv. C i as ul l i , 853 A . 2d 921, 924 ( N . J . 2004) . U nderei thercaus e of a ct i on, the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e thatthe defe ndant ’ s act i ons pr oxi m at el ycaus ed the al l eged di s tr es s . See i d. ; D ecke r , 561 A . 2d at 1 1 2 8 . H e re , the D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t M o re a u m e re lyc o m p lain e d o f e m b a rra ss m e n t, h u m il iat ion , an g er, an x iety , an d lack o f slee p , w h ich a re n o t suf ficien tl ysev ere to su p p o rt a ca us e of a ct i on underN ew J er s eyl aw . E ven i f theyw er e, M or eau di d notpr es ent m edi cal evi dence of thes e pr obl ems, w hi l e the medi cal r ecor ds i n evi dence do not es t abl i s h anycaus al r el at i ons hi p betw een W al gr een’ s act i ons and M or eau’ s al l eged d istre ss . T h u s, w e a g re e th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t as to M o re a u ’s e m o tio n a l d istre ss c laim w as appr opr i at e. F inally , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t w ith reg ard to M o rea u ’s claim that W algre en ’s ag g rav ated h is pree x ist ing m en tal il lnes s. In a p erso n al i n jury act i on, the pl ai nt i ff be ar s the bur den of de m ons tr at i ng thatthe def endant ’ s act i ons aggr avat ed a pr eexi s t i ng condi t i on. See O ’ B r i en ( N ew ark) C ogener at i on, I nc. v.6

A u to m a tic S p ri n k le r C o rp . o f A m ., 8 2 5 A .2 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 0 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 3 ). H e mustal s o di ffe r ent i at e betw een pr eexi s t i ng damages att endantt o the condi t i on and i nj ur i es s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the def endant ’ s aggr avat i ng conduct . See i d. A l though t he r ecor d befor e the D i s tr i ctC our tcont ai ns evi dence r el at i ng t o M or eau’ s tr eatm ent f o llo w in g th e a rre st, th e D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t n o n e o f th e re c o rd s s h o w e d th a t h is m ent al condi t i on w as aggr avat ed as a r es ul tof W al gr een’ s conduct . N ordi d M or eau di ffe r ent i at e betw een pr obl ems att endantt o hi s pr eexi s t i ng condi t i ons and aggr avat i on attr i but abl e t o W al gr een’ s . A ft err evi ew i ng M or eau’ s m edi cal r ecor ds , w e agr ee w i th the D istric t C o u rt. I n hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der , M or eau c hal l enged the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof su m m a ryju d g m e n t as to e a c h c laim , es se n tiallyre sta tin g th e a rg u m e n ts f ro m h is oppos i t i on t o t he s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. H e al s o al l eged, as he di d i n hi s oppos i t i on, thathe coul d obt ai n addi t i onal m edi cal r ecor ds t o s how thathi s m ent al i l l nes s w as aggr avat ed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, r eas oni ng thatM or eau’ s di s agr eement w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w as an i m pr operbas i s forr econs i der at i on, and, t o t he ext entM or eau s oughtt o i ntr oduce ne w evi dence , he fa i l ed t o expl ai n w hyhe coul d not have obt ai ned the evi dence befor e. W e agr ee. See M ax’ s Seafood Cafe e x r el . L ou- A nn, Inc . v . Q u interos, 17 6 F . 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.