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 2-8-2010 

# S t eve n M on a co v

. C ity of C amde n 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 . 09-1190

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 author i 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 " S t eve n M on a c o v

. C ity of C amde n" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1918. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1918T he H onor abl e C ynt hi a M . R ufe, D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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- 1190

____________ S T E V E N J . M O N A C O , A ppel l ant

v. C IT Y O F C A M D E N ; C IT Y O F C A M D E N P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T ; OF F I CE R L AWRE NC E NOR M AN; OF F I CE R MI GUE L RO DR I GUE Z ; S E RG E ANT M I CH AEL H ALL; OFFI CER RI CH AR D V ERTI CELLI ; OFFI CER LU I S S AN CH EZ;

OF F I CE R J UAN R ODR I GUE Z , OF F I CE R S HAY S AM P S ON.

____________ O n A p p ea l from U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 04- cv- 02406) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February4, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui t Judges , a nd RU FE , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: February8, 2010)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

S teve n M o n ac o ap p ea ls a j u d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rtd en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r a new t r i al and hi s s econd mot i on t o amend com pl ai nt . L ar gel yforthe r eas ons expl ai ned b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta n d M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i n th e i rc o g e n to p i n i o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w e r ecountonl yt hos e as pect s of the ca s e thatar e es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. O n M ay31, 2002, M onaco w as t ai l gat i ng i n t he parki ng l otnearthe Tw eet er C ent eri n C amden, N ew J er s eypr i ort o a conc ertw hen a f i ghtbr oke out . M onaco a l l eged thatdur i ng l aw enfor cement ’ s r es pons e t o t hatfi ght , he w as as s aul t ed byC amden pol i ce offi cer s w ho m i s t ook hi m fora combat ant . A ccor di ng t o M onaco, he w as t aken t o t he pol i ce s t at i on w her e he w as ques t i oned byanotheroffi cer , ShaySam ps on, w ho coer ced hi m i nt o confe s s i ng t o a publ i c dr i nki ng vi ol at i on. O n M ay25, 2004, one w eek be for e the expi r at i on of the tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , M onaco f

i l ed s ui ti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , al l egi ng cons t i tut i onal and s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tt he C i t yof C amden, the C amden Pol i ce D epart m ent , and unnamed J ohn D o e s. M o n a c o a d d e d O f f ice r S a m p so n a s a D e f

e n d a n t in h is f

irst a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. T he ca s e w entt o t r i al i n J une 2008 w i t h t he j uryfi ndi ng i n M onaco’ s favor . T he vi ct oryw as Pyr r hi c, how ever , beca us e al t hough the j uryfound “thatone orm or e C amden Pol i ce O ffi cer s depr i ved [M onaco] of the r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om exce s s i ve for ce” and “the r i ghtt o be fr ee f

r om unl aw ful arr es t , ” i tal s o found thatM onaco di d notpr ove thatthe3

C i tyof C amden had an off i ci al cus t om of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence thatcaus ed the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . Fur t herm or e, the j uryfound thatM onaco di d not“pr ove that D efe ndantSam ps on i s l i abl e form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on. ” M onaco f i l ed a mot i on fornew tr i al , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. I n thi s appea l , M onaco c hal l enges both t he deni al of hi s m ot i on fornew tr i al as w el l as the deni al of hi s s econd mot i on t o amend com pl ai nt . W e have j ur i s di ct i on over the appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A. M o n a c o c o n ten d s th a t th e ju ry ’s f in d in g th a t th e p o lice lac k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es thi m i s i ncons i s t entas a mat t erof l aw w i t h i t s fi ndi ng thatO ffi cerSam ps on i s not l i abl e form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on beca us e l ack of pr obabl e ca us e i s an el ementof a ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n c l a i m. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on fornew tr i al forabus e of d is c re tio n . T

h a b a u lt v. C h a it , 5 4 1 F .3 d 5 1 2 , 5 3 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). A di s tr i ctcourtm aygr anta mot i on fornew tr i al “af t era j urytr i al , foranyr eas on forw hi ch a new t r i al has her et ofor e bee n gr ant ed i n an ac t i on atl aw i n fede r al cour t . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 59( a) ( 1) ( A ) . I ncons i s t entgener al ver di ct s m aycons t i tut e gr ounds foror der i ng a new tr ia l. Mos l ey v . B r iggs , 1 0 2 F . 3 d 8 5 , 9 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). H o w ev er, a co u rtm ayo rde r a new t r i al bas ed on i ncons i s t entver di ct s onl yi f “no r at i onal j urycoul d have br oughtback4

the ver di ct s t hatw er e r etur ned. ” P earson v . W el bo rn , 471 F. 3d 732 ( 7th C i r . 2006) (i nternal quotat i on s and cit at i on s om i t t ed). A ccordi ng l y , w hen on e partychall eng es a j ur y ’ s ver di ct s as i ncons i s t ent , t he courthas an obl i gat i on fi r s tt o “att empt t o r econc i l e the ju ry ’s f in d in g s” to d e ter m in e “ w h e th e r th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e , co n sis ten t w ith its i ns truct i ons , r ender ed the cha l l enged ve r di ct s . ” D avi gnon v. H

odgs on , 524 F. 3d 91, 109 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee G al l i ck v . B al t i m or e & O . R . C o. , 372 U . S. 108, 1 1 9 (1 9 6 3 ) (“ [ I]t is th e d u tyo f th e c o u rts to a ttem p t to h a rm o n ize th e a n sw e rs, if it i s pos s i bl e undera fa i rr eadi ng of them: ‘ W her e ther e i s a vi ew of the ca s e thatm akes the j ur y ’ s ans w er s t o s peci al i nt err ogat or i es cons i s t ent , theym us tbe r es ol ved thatw ay . ’ ”) ( quot i ng A t l ant i c & G ul f St eve dor es , I

nc. v. E l l er m an Li nes , Ltd. , 369 U . S. 355, 364 (1 9 6 2 )). In u n d e rta k in g to re a d th e v e rd icts c o n sis ten tly , the c o u rt m u st “ v iew th e f a c ts in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” D avi gnon , 524 F. 3d at109. A ppl y i ng t hes e s t andar ds t o thi s appea l , w e have l i t t l e di ffi cul t yfi ndi ng thatthe ju ry’s v e rd ic ts re g a rd in g u n la w f u l a rr e s t a n d m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n w e re n o t in c o n s is te n t. M on aco is corr ectt hat l ack o f prob able cause i s an el em ent of bo t h an un l aw ful arres t c la im a n d a m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im . See, e. g. , P af f v. Kal t enbach , 204 F. 3d 425, 435 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (u n law f

u l ar re st); B r uns on v. A

f f i ni t y Feder alC r edi tU

ni on , 972 A . 2d 1112, 1119 ( N . J . 2009) ( m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on) . N evert hel es s , the j ury ’ s fi ndi ng thatt he o f f ice rs w h o to o k c u sto d yo f M o n a c o a t th e T w e e ter C e n ter lac k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to arr es tdoes notpr ecl ude a f i ndi ng t hatO ffi cerSam ps on w as notl i abl e form al i ci ousT he i ncons i s t encyof the t es t i m onyr egar di ng w hi ch al cohol i c beve r age M onaco 1 w as dr i nki ng— M onaco a nd Sam ps on t es t i fi ed he c onfes s ed t o dr i nki ng a C oor s L i ght w hil e D oran-Pan gb orne sai d itw as a M i ke’s H ard L em on ade— i s i m m at eri al becau se ei therbever age c oul d s ubj ecthi m t o the cha r ge of publ i c dr i nki ng. M onaco a r gues t hatt he evi dence of hi s confe s s i on s houl d have be en exc l uded as 2 “ f ru it o f th e p o iso n o u s tre e ,” b e c a u se it w a s o b tain e d su b se q u e n t to h is illeg a l ar re st. T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t a s it c o n f u s e s th e p ri n c ip le s o f

c iv il a n d c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . 5 p ro s e c u tio n . See P ears on , 4 7 1 F .3 d a t 7 3 9 (v e rd icts f in d in g tw o o f

f iv e d e f e n d a n ts liab le for r et al i at i on w ere noti nco nsi st ent w here j urycou l d h ave b el i eved that tw o d efen dan t s’ act i ons cons t i tut ed r et al i at i on w hi l e s i m ul t aneous l yfi ndi ng thatot herdefe ndant s w er e not i nvol ved i n r et al i at or yact ) . A s expl ai ned bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , w hen the fa ct s ar e vi ew ed in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e v e rd icts , the re a re a t lea st tw o e x p lan a tio n s th a t w o u ld re n d e r th e se ju ryv e rd icts c o n sis ten t. Fi r s t , t he j ur ycoul d have f ound thateven though the off i cer s w ho t ook M onaco in to c u sto d ya t th e T w e e ter C e n ter lac k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st, O f f ice r S a m p so n d id have pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve M onaco ha d been dr i nki ng i n publ i c atthe t i m e Sampson i s s ued the ci t at i on. T he j ur ycoul d have c r edi t ed Sampson’ s t es t i m onythathe had not been pr es entdur i ng M onaco’ s arr es tand thatSam ps on fi r s tencount er ed M onaco a tt he pol i ce s t at i on. M onaco, Sam ps on, and M onaco’ s then- gi r l fr i end, N i col e D or anP a n g b o rn e , all tes tifie d th a t M o n a c o to ld S a m p so n th a t h e h a d c o n su m e d a n a lco h o lic bever age be for e the conc ert . D or an- Pangbor ne al s o t es t i fi ed thatM onaco ha d been dri nk i ng al coh ol att he p arki ng l ot. M on aco co ntends that a fi nd i ng of p robable cause 1 coul d notbe bas ed upon hi s confe s s i on beca us e i tw as coer ced. B utthe evi dence 2T he frui tof the poi s onous t r ee doc t r i ne ca nnotbe i nvoked t o s uppor ta ci vi l cl ai m for

damages beca us e “the doctr i ne i s an evi dent i aryrul e thatoper at es i n t he cont extof cr i m i nal pr ocedur e and ha s gener al l ybeen he l d t o appl yonl yi n cr i m i nal tr i al s . ” Jenki ns v. C i t y of N ew Y ork , 478 F. 3d 76, 91 n. 16 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i ons o m itt e d ); U

nited S tates v. C alandra , 414 U . S. 338 348 ( 1974) ( i ns t ruct i ng that“s t andi ng t o i nvoke the exc l us i onaryrul e has been c onfi ned t o s i tuat i ons w her e the G overnm ent see k s to u se su ch ev iden ce to inc ri m inate the v ict im o f th e u n law fu l search ”). 6 re g a rd in g c o e rc io n a t tr ia l w a s d is p u te d : M o n a c o ’s a lle g a tio n v e rs u s S a m p s o n ’s d e n ia l. T h e ju ryw a s e n tit led to d isb e liev e M o n a c o ’s a lleg a tio n s o f c o e rc io n , an d c re d it S am pson ’s t est i m on yt hat M on aco co nfessed freel yi n respon se t o S am pson ’s qu est i on s. B a se d o n M o n a c o ’s a d m iss io n to S a m p so n th a t h e h a d c o n su m e d a lco h o l w h ile t ai l gat i ng befor e the conc ert , t he j ur yr eas onabl ycoul d have f ound t hatSam ps on had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve M onaco ha d been dr i nki ng i n publ i c w hen he i s s ued the ci t at i on. T hi s i s cert ai nl ya “mi ni m al l ypl aus i bl e vi ew of the ca s e” w hi ch r ender s the ju ry’s f a ls e a rr e s t a n d m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n v e rd ic ts c o n s is te n t. See McAdam v. D ean W i t t erR eynolds , I

nc. , 8 9 6 F . 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 6 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). A s econd e xpl anat i on pl aus i bl yr econc i l es the j ury ’ s ver di ct s . I n addi t i on t o a l ack o f p ro b a b le c a u s e , lia b ility f o r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n re q u ir e s a s h o w in g o f m a lic e . See B r uns on , 9 7 2 A .2 d a t 1 1 1 9 -2 0 . T h e ju ryh e re c o u ld h a v e f o u n d th a t M o n a c o f

a iled to p ro v e th a t O f

f ic e r S a m p s o n a c te d m a lic io u s ly, i . e. , “w i t houtj us tcaus e orexcus e. ” I d. at 1 2 0 . T h e ju ryw a s f

re e to d isb e liev e M o n a c o ’s te stim o n yth a t S a m p so n th re a ten e d h im i nt o m aki ng a fa l s e conf es s i on, cr edi tSam ps on’ s t es t i m onythathe di d notthr eat en M o n a c o , a n d c o n c lu d e th a t M o n a c o f a ile d to e s ta b lis h th e m a lic e e le m e n t o f h is c la im .M onaco a r gues t hatt he C i t ys houl d be es t opped fr om as s ert i ng the s t atut e of 3 l i m i t at i ons beca us e i tdi d notoppos e hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o amend, w hi ch al s o w as fi l ed af t er the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed. W e r ej ectthi s ar gum entas the C i t y ’ s as s ert i on of the sta tu te o f lim itatio n s in o p p o sitio n to th e se c o n d m o tio n to a m e n d is n o t in c o n sis ten t w ith 7 Vi e wi n g t h e t e s t i mo n yb e f o r e t h e j u r yi n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e v e r d i c t s , we ca n n o t con clud e tha t “no rati o n al j u ryco u ld h av e b rou g h t bac k the v erd ict s tha t w ere r etur ned. ” P ears on , 471 F. 3d at739. B. T he r emai nderof the i s s ues M onaco r ai s es conce r n t he deni al of hi s s econd mot i on t o amend com pl ai nt . B eca us e w e fi nd thatM onaco’ s s econd mot i on t o amend w as unt i m el yand ther efor e fut i l e, w e do nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s hi s al l egat i ons of err ori n t he D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ials o f h is a p p e a l f

ro m th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s o rd e r a n d h is m o tio n to re c o n sid e r th a t d e n ial. Le a v e t o a me n d p l e a d i n g s “ s h a l l b e f r e e l yg i v e n wh e n j u s t i c e s o r e q u i r e s . ” F e d . R. C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). A s a rticu late d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt: I n the abs ence of anyappar entordecl ar ed r eas on- s uch as undue del ay , bad fa ith o r dil atorym o ti v e o n the p art of the m o v an t, rep ea ted f

ail u re to c u re defi ci enci es byamendm ent s pr evi ous l yal l ow ed, undue pr ej udi ce t o t he oppos i ng part ybyvi r tue of a l l ow ance of the amendm ent , fut i l i t yof a m e n d m e n t, etc .-th e lea v e so u g h t sh o u ld , as th e ru les re q u ire , b e “ f re e ly g iv e n .” Fo rm a n v . D a v is , 3 7 1 U .S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (1 9 6 2 ). B e c a u se M o n a c o so u g h t to a m e n d h is compl ai ntfora s econd t i m e appr oxi m at el ytw o y ear s aft erthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons e x p ire d , h is m o tio n is f

u til e u n les s it re late s b a c k to th e d a te o f th e o rig in a l co m p lain t. 3i t s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he fi r s tm ot i on t o amend, and bec aus e i tw oul d nothave be en

r eas onabl e forM onaco t o del ayfi l i ng hi s s econd mot i on t o amend i n r el i ance on t he f a ilu re to o b

je c t. S e e g e n e ra lly Knor rv. Sm eal , 836 A . 2d 794, 799 ( N . J . 2003) ( “The d o c trin e [ o f

e q u itab le e sto p p e l] is d e sig n e d to p re v e n t in ju stic e b yn o t p e rm itt in g a p a rty to re p u d ia te a c o u rs e o f a c tio n o n w h ic h a n o th e r p a rt yh a s re lie d to h is d e tr im e n t.” ). Fur therm or e, w e not e thataft erM onaco f i l ed hi s fi r s tamended compl ai nti n M ar ch 2005, al l of the new l yadded de fenda nt s — s ave O ffi cerSam ps on— s ucce s s ful l ym oved for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e c la im s w e re b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . M onaco di d notappea l t hatrul i ng. 8 See Fed. R . C i v. P. 15( c) ( 1) . W hetherM onaco’ s amendm entr el at es back t o t he or i gi nal pl eadi ng i s det erm i ned byt he l aw t hatpr ovi des the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , s ee i d. , i n thi s cas e, N ew J er s ey . T w o N ew J er s eyrul es ar e r el evantt o M onaco’ s m ot i on, N . J . C our tR ul es 4: 26- 4 and 4: 9- 3, butM onaco f ai l ed t o s at i s fythe r equi r ement s of ei ther rul e. R ul e 4: 26- 4, N ew J er s ey ’ s fi ct i t i ous part yrul e, perm i t s a pl ai nt i ff t o s ue a defe ndantundera fi ct i t i ous name w hen the def endant ’ s true name i s unknow n. T he pl ai nt i ff mayus e the fi ct i t i ous par t yrul e t o add def endant s aft erthe expi r at i on of the statu te of li m it ati o n s “o n lyif th e p lai n ti ff ex erc ised d u e d il igen ce to as ce rt ain d ef en d an t’ s true name bef

or e and after fi l i ng t he compl ai nt . ” D eRi enz o v. H ar var d. I ndus . , I nc. , 357 F. 3d 348, 353 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . “I n t he cont extof N .J.R . 4 :2 6 -4 , p lain tiff

s m u st ‘in v e stig a te a ll p o ten tiallyre sp o n sib le p a rties in a tim e ly m anner ’ t o cr os s t he thr es hol d fordue di l i gence . ” I d. at354 ( quot i ng M

at yns ka v. Fr i ed , 8 1 1 A . 2 d 4 5 6 , 4 5 7 (N . J. 2 0 0 2 )).M onaco’ s ar gum entt hathe coul d notr eturn t o t he pol i ce s t at i on t o r evi ew the 4 phot o book pr i ort o t he runni ng of the tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e of the in tim id a tio n h e su f

f e re d o n M a y3 1 , 2 0 0 2 is n o t p e rsu a siv e . M o n a c o c ites n o a u th o rity fort hi s pr opos i t i on, and eve n i f he w er e fe ar ful of the C amden pol i ce, ther e i s no r eas on M onaco a nd hi s l aw y ercoul d nothave a r r anged t o r evi ew the phot o book atanother l ocat i on. 9 M onaco ha s notpr es ent ed ade quat e evi dence of ef for t s t aken bef

or e t he expi r at i on o f th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s to sa tisf

yth e d ili g e n c e re q u ire m e n t. M o n a c o a lleg e s th a t h is eff or t s w er e thw ar t ed bec aus e, i n r es pons e t o t he di s coveryr eques t s he made i n defe ndi ng th e p u b lic d rin k in g c h a rg e s in m u n icip a l co u rt, th e C itysta ted th a t itw a s “ u n a b le to lo c a te a n yre p o rt” re lev a n t to th e c h a rg e . M o n a c o f a ils to sh o w w h yth e C ity ’s in a b ili tyto lo c a te a n yre p o rts p re v e n ted h im o r h is e y e w itn e ss e s f ro m re v iew in g th e p o lice p h o to b o o k to ide n ti fyp o tential d ef en d an ts du ri n g the tw o y ea rs be fo re h e f il ed su it . T h e C ity ’s in a b ili tyto lo c a te a re p o rt a t th a t ti m e , w h ile tro u b lin g , d o e s n o t ex c u se M o n a c o f ro m h is di l i gence obl i gat i ons . A ccor di ngl y , he ca nnotavai l hi m s el f of Rul e 4: 26- 4 t o avoi d t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons bart o hi s s econd mot i on t o amend. 4 R ul e 4: 9- 3, N ew J er s ey ’ s gener al r el at i on back rul e, pr ovi des thatan amendm ent changi ng t he part yagai ns tw hom a cl ai m i s as s ert ed r el at es back t o t he dat e of the o rig in a l co m p lain t if: (1 ) it ar o se o u t o f th e sa m e tra n sa c tio n o r o c c u rre n c e se t f o rth in the or i gi nal pl eadi ng; ( 2) t he pr opos ed def endantr ece i ved not i ce of the i ns t i tut i on of the a c tio n w ith in th e lim itatio n s p e rio d su c h th a t th e p a rtyw ill n o t b e p re ju d ice d in m a in tain in g a d e f

e n se ; an d (3 ) th e p ro p o se d d e f e n d a n t k n e w o r sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t,10

butforthe mi s i dent i fi cat i on of the pr operpart y , the ac t i on w oul d have be en br ought a g a in s t h im o r h e r. A rr o y o v . P lea sa n t G a rd e n Ap a rtm e n ts , 14 F. Supp. 2d 696, 701 ( D . N . J . 1998) ( ci t i ng V

i vi ano v. C

B S, I nc. , 503 A . 2d 296, 304 ( N . J . 1986) ) . I n t hi s cas e, M o n a c o h a s n o t m e t h is b u rd e n w ith re sp e c t to th e se c o n d o r th ird p ro n g s o f th e tes t. M onaco a r gues t hatt he pr opos ed def endant s had not i ce of

the l aw s ui tand know l edge thatt heyw er e pot ent i al defe ndant s beca us e: ( 1) i n an i nt ervi ew w i t h t he m edi a s hor t l yaft ert he i nci dent , a mem berof the C amden Pol i ce D epart m ents t at ed that the i nci dentw oul d be i nves t i gat ed i nt ernal l y , ( 2) the pr opos ed def endant s ar e C amden P o lice o f f ice rs a n d th e C ityo f

C a m d e n w a s n a m e d a d e f e n d a n t in th e o rig in a l co m p lain t, and ( 3) i n t hei rans w ert o t he amended compl ai nt , the C i t yacknow l edged thatther e w as anotherl aw s ui tpendi ng r egar di ng t he M ay31, 2002 i nci dent . W e di s agr ee f ors ever al reas on s. Fi r s t , t he medi a s t at ementr egar di ng an i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on coul d nothave n o ti fied the p rop o sed d ef en d an ts of

M o n ac o ’s l aw su itsinc e itw as m ad e a lm o st tw o y ea rs pr i ort o the i ni t i at i on of the l aw s ui t . A ddi t i onal l y , the i nves t i gat i on i t s el f w as not conduct ed byt he C amden C i t yPol i ce D epart m entunt i l Februaryof 2005, overs even m o n th s a f

ter th e e x p ira tio n o f

th e sta tu te o f

lim itatio n s; th e re f

o re , the in v e stig a tio n c o u ld nothave putt he pr opos ed def endant s on not i ce of

the l aw s ui tbefor e the expi r at i on of the l i m i t at i ons per i od.11

S e c o n d , w h ile in so m e c irc u m sta n c e s, th e “ id e n tityo f in ter e st” m e th o d p e rm its im p u tin g n o tic e o f

a n a c tio n to a n u n n a m e d p a rt y , s ee Si ngl etar y v. P enns

ylvani a D ept . of C or r ect i ons , 266 F. 3d 186, 198 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , M onaco ha s nots how n t hatthe pr opos ed d e f e n d a n ts a n d th e C ity o f

C a m d e n s h a re s u c h a n id e n tity o f in te re s t. See O t chy v . C i t y of E l iz abeth B d. of

E duc. , 737 A . 2d 1151, 1157 ( N . J . Super . A . D . 1999) . A l s o, M onaco fi l ed hi s or i gi nal l aw s ui tonl ys i x day s befor e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons expi r ed and di d not s erve the C i t yunt i l J une 14, 2004; ther efor e, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe C i t yw oul d have had t i m e t o i dent i fyand not i fyt he pr opos ed def endant s of the ac t i on befor e the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s ra n . See Love v. R ancocas H os p. , 270 F. Supp. 2d 576, 581 ( D . N . J . 2003) (ho lding that w h ere em p loy er a n d so m e e m p loy ee s w ere serv ed just da y s b ef o re l i m i t at i ons per i od expi r ed, t heydi d nothave s uffi ci entt i m e t o det erm i ne thatnamed em p loy ee s w ere iden ti fied inco rrectl yan d n o ti fyco rrect em p loy ee o f th e a cti o n ). Fi nal l y , t he mer e exi s t ence of a r el at ed l aw s ui tw as i ns uffi ci entt o putthe pr opos ed d e f e n d a n ts o n n o tic e o f

M o n a c o ’s la w s u it, o r t h a t th e ym ig h t b e d e f e n d a n ts in th e c a s e . E ven i f addi t i onal l aw s ui t s overt he M ay31, 2002 i nci dental ert ed the pr opos ed defe ndant s t o t he exi s t ence of pot ent i al cl ai m s , i tw oul d nothave a l ert ed them t o t he in s titu tio n o f

M o n a c o ’s la w s u it. See O t chy , 7 3 7 A .2 d a t 1 1 5 6 (“ T h e ru le e x p re ss ly r equi r es ‘ not i ce of

t he i ns t i tut i on of the ac t i on’ notj us tof a c l ai m . T he purpos e of that not i ce pr ovi s i on i n t he rul e i s t o as s ur e thatthe adde d par t yw i l l notbe pr ej udi ced by12

h a v in g to d e f

e n d a sta le c laim .”). T h e re f o re , M o n a c o h a s n o t sa tisf ied th e re q u ire m e n ts forr el at i on- back unde rR ul e 4: 9- 3. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe ver di ct s w er e noti ncons i s t entand thatM onaco’ s s econd mot i on t o amend com pl ai ntw as unt i m el yand pr oper l ydeni ed as f u til e . 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.