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 1-28-2010 

# E i lee n O ' D onnel l v

. G ale S imon 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 . 09-1241

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " E i le e n O ' D onne ll v

. G ale S imon" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1999. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1999NOT 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- 1241 E IL E E N O ' D O N N E L L , A ppel l ant

v. G A L E SI M O N , an A s s i s t antC om m i s s i onerof the N ew J er s ey D e p a rt m e n t o f

B a n k in g a n d In s u ra n c e ; L E E B A R R Y , a n A s s i s t a n tC o m m i s s i o n e ro f t h e N e w J e r s e y D e p a rt m e n t o f

B a n k in g a n d In s u ra n c e ; H E A L T H N E T , IN C .; H E A L T H N E T O F T H E N O R T H E A S T , IN C .; H E A L T H N E T O F N E W JE R S E Y , IN C .; JA Y G E L L E R T ;

CU RT W ESTE N APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 05351) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le F aith S . H o ch b erg Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2010)

OP I NI ONB eca us e the di s t i nct i ons ar e of no mom enther e, w e do notdi s t i ngui s h betw een 1 H eal t h N etand i t s subsi diar i es. I n addi t i on t o Si m on and B arr y , O ’ D onnel l named H eal t h N et , i t s s ubs i di ar i es , and 2 tw o H ea lth N et ex ec u ti v es a s d ef en d an ts. H o w ev er, fo ll o w ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm entw i t h r es pectt o Si m on and B arr y , O ’ D onnel l ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tt he other -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge E i l een O ’ D onnel l appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J ul y25, 2007 or dergr ant i ng G al e Si m on and Lee B arr y ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s hercompl ai ntpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(6 ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d w ill a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e p a rties ’ b e n e f

it, w e se t f

o rth o n lyth o se f

a c ts nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , al l fac tual all eg ati o n s m u st be ac ce p ted a s tru e a n d all rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s d raw n in p lai n ti ff ’s f a v o r. P hi l l i

ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . O urr evi ew of th e g ra n t o f

a m o tio n to d is m is s is p le n a ry. Id . a t 2 3 0 . I n 1995, O ’ D onnel l began w or ki ng as an att or neyforFi r s tO pt i on H eal t h Pl an of N e w Je rse y , a c o m p a n yp u rc h a se d b yH e a lth N e t, In c . (“H e a lth N e t”) in 1 9 9 7 . W h ile 1 w or ki ng forH eal t h N et , O ’ D onnel l , among ot herdut i es , r egul ar l yi nt er act ed w i t h t he N e w Je rse yD e p a rtm e n t o f B a n k in g a n d In su ra n c e (“ D O B I” ), a s tate a g e n c yc h a rg e d w ith t he over s i ghtof hea l t h car e compani es , and Si m on and B arr y , bot h D O B I A s s i s t ant C om m i ssi on ers . 2defe ndant s w er e di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce a nd ar e notati s s ue her e. -3- I n 2002, O ’ D onnel l l earned that , begi nni ng i n J ul y2001, H eal t h N etus ed an i m pr operdat abas e forcal cul at i ng cl ai m r ei m bur s ement s i n vi ol at i on of N ew J er s ey r egul at i ons . T he i ncorr ectcal cul at i ons t hatr es ul t ed l ed t o H eal t h N etm aki ng r es t i tut i on, pay i ng a fi ne, and bei ng named as a def endanti n a cl as s act i on l aw s ui t . D ur i ng t he cou rs e of the cl ass act i on , i tw as r evealed t hat H eal t h N etal so used a n im proper database in 1 9 9 9 , b u t f

a ile d to in f

o rm D O B I o f

th e e rr o r o r, i f

it h a d , f a ile d to m a k e re s titu tio n . Si m on and B arr ybl amed O ’ D onnel l fort he 1999 fa i l ur e, char act er i zi ng heract i ons as “hi di ng” the vi ol at i on. ( A pp. 21. ) I n t he cl as s act i on l i t i gat i on, H eal t h N etbl amed O ’D o n n e ll f

o r t h e 1 9 9 9 v io la tio n , a n a lle g a tio n s h e d e n ie s . I n t he s um m erof 2005, D O B I m etw i t h H eal t h N etoffi ci al s . A tt hatm eet i ng, Si m on and/ orB arr yi nform ed H eal t h N ett hatO ’ D onnel l i m peded r el at i ons betw een D O B I and H eal t h N etand thatO ’ D onnel l w as “untrus t w or t hy , uncooper at i ve and t oo a d v e rsa ria l.” (A p p . 2 2 .) S im o n a n d B a rrya d v ise d H e a lth N e t th a t D O B I d id n o t w ish to i n t e r a c twi t h O’ Do n n e l l . Th e r e a f t e r , O’ Do n n e l l l e a r n e d t h a tS i mo n d i r e c t e d DOBI e m p lo y e e s n o t to c o m m u n ica te w ith O ’D o n n e ll, a n d O ’D o n n e ll’s su p e rv iso r a t H e a lth N etdi r ect ed hernott o i nt er actw i t h D O B I . O ’ D onnel l i nfor m ed H eal t h N ett hats he w as cons i der i ng fi l i ng a l aw s ui tagai ns tD O B I and i t s agent s for“bl ackba l l i ng” her . She w as te rm in a te d b yH e a lth N e t in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 6 . (A p p . 2 4 .)O ’ D onnel l cont ends t hats he w as deni ed both s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due 3 pr oces s . V i ol at i on of both form s of due pr oces s r equi r e the depr i vat i on of a c o n s titu tio n a lly p ro te c te d p ro p e rt yo r l ib e rt yin te re s t. See P iec kn ickv . P e n n sy lva n ia , 36 F .3 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). -4- I n Nove mber20 06 , O ’ D on ne l l fi l e d s ui ta ga i ns tSi mon a nd Barr yi n the U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyal l egi ng vi ol at i ons of both 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and the N ew J er s eyC i vi l R i ght s A ct , N . J . St at . A nn. § 10: 6- 1 et s eq. , as w el l as comm on l aw cl ai m s of negl i gence , i nt ent i onal ornegl i genti nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s , t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th contr actual r el at i ons hi ps , t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i t h pr os pect i ve ec o n o m ic ad v an tage , an d d ef am ati o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted S im o n an d B arry ’s R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s . I I . D i s cus s i on A. O ’ D onnel l cont ends t hatSi m on and B arr y ’ s conductl ed t o herbei ng barr ed fr om d e a lin g w ith D O B I a n d , thu s, w ro n g f u llyd e p riv e d h e r o f

p ro p e rtya n d lib e rtyin ter e sts u n d e rt h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . S p e c i f i c a l l y, 3 O ’ D onnel l cont ends t hats he w as depr i ved of: ( 1) heri nt er es t s i n herl aw l i cens e and c o n tin u in g h e r c h o se n p ro f e ss io n ; an d (2 ) h e r in ter e st in a v o id in g d e b a rm e n t w h ich w o u ld pr ecl ude heri nt er act i on w i t h D O B I . Si m on and B arr ycont end thatt heyar e s hi el ded by q u a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y.

“ [ Q ]u a lifie d im m u n ityp ro tec ts g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls f ro m liab ili tyf

o r c iv il damages i ns ofaras t hei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed . . . cons t i tut i onal-5-

r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” P ears on v. C al l ahan , – U . S. –, 1 2 9 S .C t. 80 8 , 8 1 5 (2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). It re f lec ts th e “ n e e d to h o ld p u b lic o f f icia ls a c c o u n tab le w h e n th e ye x e rc ise p o w e r irre sp o n sib lya n d th e n e e d to sh ield offi ci al s fr om har as s m ent , di s t r act i on, and l i abi l i t yw hen theyper for m t hei rdut i es r eas onabl y . ” I

d. I n Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , t he Supr eme C our tm andat ed a tw o- s t ep qual i fi ed i m m uni t yanal y s i s – fi r s t , w hether“the fa ct s al l eged s how t hatt he [of fi ci al ’ s ] conduct v io late d a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t,” a n d , se c o n d , w h e th e r th e rig h t, i f v io late d , “w a s c lea rly es t abl i s hed. ” 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . I n P ears on , t he C our tbacke d aw ayfr om t hat s equenc e, s t at i ng, “w hi l e the s equenc e s etfor t h [i n Sauci er ] is o f ten a p p ro p ria te, it sh o u ld no l ongerbe r egar ded as m andat or y . ” 129 S. C t . at818. W e nonethel es s begi n by det erm i ni ng w hetherO ’ D onnel l can e s t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. B eca us e s he ca n n o t, w e n ee d n o t pro ce ed fu rth er. A pl ai nt i ff a l l egi ng a pr oper t yi nt er es ti n empl oym ent“musthave mor e than a u n ilate ra l ex p e c tatio n o f c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t; rath e r, [ h e o r] s h e m u st h a v e a leg iti m a te ent i t l ementt o s uch cont i nued empl oym ent . ” Hi l lv . Ku t z t o wn , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A “ p lain tiff

m u st d e m o n stra te e n tit lem e n t to a p ro p e rtyin ter e st c re a ted e x p re ss ly b ysta te s tatu te o r re g u latio n o r a risin g f ro m g o v e rn m e n t p o licyo r a m u tu a llye x p licit under s t andi ng betw een a governm entempl oy erand an e m pl oy ee. ” C ar t erv. P h ila d e lp h ia , 989 F. 2d 117, 120 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . H er e, O ’ D onnel l fai l s t o ci t e anys t atut e, re g u latio n , p o licy , o r m u tu a llye x p licit u n d e rsta n d in g e sta b lish in g th a t sh e h a s a p ro p e rty-6-

in te re s t in in te ra c tin g w ith D O B I o r t o c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t w ith H e a lth N e t. A ccor di ngl y , her“uni l at er al expec t at i on of cont i nued empl oym ent ” does notr i s e t o t he lev e l o f a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted p ro p e rtyin ter e st. “The r i ghtt o hol d s peci fi c pr i vat e empl oym entand t o fol l ow a chos en pr ofes s i on f re e f ro m u n re a so n a b le g o v e rn m e n tal in ter f e re n c e ” a re lib e rtya n d p ro p e rtyin ter e sts p ro te c te d b yth e C o n s titu tio n . P i eckni ck , 36 F. 3d at1259. H ow ever , “[s ] t at e ac t i ons t hat e x c lu d e a p e rso n f

ro m o n e p a rticu lar jo b a re n o t ac tio n a b le in su its . . . b ro u g h t d ire c tly undert he due pr oces s cl aus e. I ti s t he l i ber t yt o pur s ue a c al l i ng oroccupa t i on, and not t he r i ghtt o a s peci fi c j ob, t hati s s ecur ed byt he Four t eenth A m endment . ” I d. ( al t er at i on in o ri g inal; qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). H e re , 

### O’ Donne l lc ont e nds that Si m on and Barry ’ s c onduc t “ e ffe c t e d al os s of e xi s t i ng e m

pl oy m e nt , al os s of e m

pl oyabi l i ty

i n the fi e l d of he r

c hos e n pr ofe s s i on, and a co ntractio no f

h er lawlicen se.” (Ap p ellant B rief at 2 1 .) H o w ev er, O ’D o n n ell ’s cont ent i on t hatSi m on and B arr y ’ s conductamount ed t o a de f act o r evoca t i on or li m it ati o n o f h er law li ce n se g o es to o fa r. Ind ee d , h er 

### com plaint concedes that

her em p lo y m ent w ithH ealthN et inv o lv edtask s m u chb ro ad er th anm erely

interactin g w ith D O B I an din clu d edth e p ro v isio no f leg al adv ice to H ealthN et an dn eg o tiatio nw ith phy s i c i ans , hos pi t a l s , and s pe c i a l ty pr ovi de r s i n Ne w York, Ne w J e r s e y , and C o nn ecticut. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e O ’ D onnel l ’ s t erm i nat i on byH eal t h N etand any act i ons t aken bySi m on and B arr yaff ect ed onl yhers peci fi c j ob w i t h H eal t h N et– nother-7-

b ro a d e r rig h t to p ra c tice law – sh e h a s n o t as se rte d a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted lib e rty in ter e st. 

### O’ Donne l la l s o argue s that s he ha s ari ght

t o do bus i ne s s wi th the s t at e , r e l yi ng on, am o n g o th er auth o rities, Be rlantiv . Bodman , 780 F. 2d 296 ( 3d Ci r . 1985) , and De part me nt of Labor v . Ti tan Cons truc ti on Co. , 504 A.2d7 (N.J. 19 85 ), two cas es i nvol vi ng the Ne w J e r s e y Departm e nt

of Labor ’ s abi l i ty

t o de bar c ontr a c t or s fr om g o v ernm ent p ro

j ects f o r f ailin g to co m

p ly w ithth e N ewJersey

P rev ailin g Wag e A ct. Thos e c a s e s , howe ve r , ar edi s t i ngui s habl e . Unl i ke the pl a i nt i ffs i n B erla n tiand Ti tan Cons truc ti on , O ’ D o nn e l lw a s n o t f o r e c l o s e df

r o m c ontrac ting wi t

h DO BI no r pre vented f ro m o b tain in g g o v ernm ent co ntracts. A cco rd in g ly , th is arg um ent to o f ails. O’ Donne l lc ont e nds , fi na l l y , that Si m on and Barry

m ay not ava i lthe m s e l ve s of qu al ifie d imm

un it y beca use they la cked the a

utho ri ty to “dem and that Hea lt

h N et fireher, [t o] r e fus [e ] t o a l l ow he r

t o i nt e r a c t

wi th [DOBI ], and [t o] di r e c t [ DOBI ] s t a ff t o have no deal ing w it

h h er onany m atte r. ” ( Ap pell ant Bri ef at 21 ). Putting asi de O’Do nn el l’ s f ailure to cite any

auth o rity estab lish in g th at S im o nan dB arry lack edth e d iscretio nto de t e rmi ne wi th whom

the y ( or , for that m att e r , DOBIpe r s onne l ) i nt e r a c t , O’ Donne l ldi d n o t estab lishth at sh e w as d en ieda co n stitutio n ally p ro tectedp ro p erty

o r lib erty interest inth e f irst in stan ce. H

ill , 4 5 5 F .3 dat 2 3 3 -3 4 ; Nicholas v. Penn . StateUn iv . , 227 F. 3d 1 3 3 , 1 3 9 -4 0 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A cco rd in g ly , w e rej ect th is arg um ent. B.-8-

O ’D o n n e ll a lle g e s th a t S im o n a n d B a rr yd e f a m e d h e r i n th e s u m m e r o f 2 0 0 5 . O ’ D onnel l ’ s compl ai nt , how ever , w as notfi l ed unt i l N ovember2006, aft ert he one- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on defa m at i on act i ons expi r ed. N . J . St at . A nn. § 2A : 14- 3. I n N ew J er s ey , t he “di s coveryrul e” c annotext end the l i m i t at i ons per i od for d e f a m a tio n c la im s . Law r ence v. B auerP ubl ’ g & Pri nt i ng Ltd. , 39 6 A . 2d 56 9, 57 0 (N . J. 1 9 7 9 ) (a d o p tin g re a so n in g o f d iss e n tin g a p p e llate ju d g e , 3 8 1 A .2 d 3 5 8 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 1 9 7 7 )). N e v e rth e les s, O ’D o n n e ll arg u e s th a t Law r ence w as w r ongl ydeci ded and, i n t he al t ernat i ve, t hatw e s houl d fi nd a l i m i t ed exc ept i on t o i t s rul e. B eca us e E rie R ai lr oad C o. v. Tom

pki ns , 304 U . S. 64 ( 1938) , r equi r es us “t o fol l ow s t at e l aw as announce d byt he hi ghes ts t at e court , ” w e r ej ectO ’ D onnel l ’ s ar gum entw i t houtfur t her d is c u s s io n . Edwar ds v . H O VEN SA, LLC , 4 9 7 F . 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

C. O ’D o n n e ll m e n tio n s, b u t d o e s n o t d isc u ss , the d ism iss a l o f h e r N e w Je rse yC iv il R i ght s A ctcl ai m ( as w el l as t he di s m i s s al of hers t at e comm on l aw cl ai m s ot hert han defa m at i on) onl ybyw ayof footnot es i n heropeni ng br i ef. A ccor di ngl y , anyappea l re g a rd in g th o s e c la im s h a s b e e n w a iv e d . O dd v. Mal one , 5 3 8 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 7 n . 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). D. F in a lly , O ’D o n n e ll co n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yf a ili n g to p e rm it h e r to amend hercompl ai nt . W hen a c om pl ai nti s di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon-9-

w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, a pl ai nt i ff s houl d be gr ant ed the oppor tuni t yt o amend t he c o m p lain t un l ess a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e in e q u ita b le o r f u tile . G ra

y so n v . M

a y v iew S ta te H os p. , 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). B e c a u se O ’D o n n e ll h a s f a iled e v e n n o w to i dent i fyanycons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed pr oper t yorl i ber t yi nt er es tand unt i m el yfi l ed her defa m at i on cl ai m , w e conc l ude thati tw oul d have be en fut i l e fort he C our tt o pr ovi de her w i t h l eave t o amend. III . F o r th e re aso n s stated a b o v e, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.