2005 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 5-11-2005 

# Gon z ale z v . F eine r 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 . 02-1160

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_2005

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 2005 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
" Gonzalez v

. F eine r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1221. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1221NOT 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 . 02- 1160

________________ J AC QU ELI NE G ON ZALEZ; M AD ELI NE R AW LES

v. US HE R F E I NE R, L AKE WOOD P OL I CE CH AP L AI N; LA K EW O O D PO LI CE D EPA RT M EN T; M I CH A EL L Y N CH , PO LI CE CH I EF; J OHN M ARS HALL, S R. , DEP UTY CHI EF , I NDI VI DUA LL Y AN D AS A P OLI CE

OF F I CE R F OR T HE CI T Y OF L AKE WOOD, NE W J E RS E Y; L AKE WOOD OF F I CE R, UNKNO WN P OL I CE OF F I CE R F OR T HE CI T Y OF LAKEWOO D TOW NSHI P ; LAKEWOO D TOW NSHI P P OLI CE C OM M I S S I ONER;

SAM UEL M AY ER; BI AS K AI LA TO RA PREP HI GH SCHO OL; YI S RO E L S CH E NKOL E WS KI , P OL I CE CH AP L AI N;

GI TAL/ DA VI D K ALU SZYN ER J acque l i ne G onzal ez, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . N . J . C i v. N o. 00- cv- 1172) D istri ct Ju d g e: G arrettE . B row n , Jr.

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

M ay29, 2003 Be f o r e : RO TH, M CK EE AN D A M BRO , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2005)R aw l es has fi l ed a s epar at e appe al . See C . A . N o. 02- 1571. 1 2 ____________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________
P E R C UR I AM J acque l i ne G onzal ez a ppeal s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eygr ant i ng the def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , and i s s ui ng a pr e- fi l i ng i nj unct i on. O n M ar ch 10, 2000, w i th co- pl ai nt i ff M adel i ne R aw l es , appel l antJ acque l i ne 1 G onzal ez f

i l ed a c i vi l r i ght s compl ai nt , cl ai m i ng thatm ember s of the Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m entand var i ous pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s vi ol at ed herr i ght s underthe C i vi l R i ght s A ct of 1964, 42 U . S. C . §§ 1983 and 1985( 3) , and the Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e of the 14 th A m e n d m e n t. G on zal ez’s cl ai m s ar i se out of an inci den tthat occurr ed d uri ng an o rtho do x Jew i sh
comm uni ty ’ s obs ervance of the hol i dayof Pur i m . O n M ar ch 12, 1998, w hi l e dr i vi ng thr ough a nei ghborhood i n L akew ood, N ew J er s ey , G onzal ez a nd R aw l es not i ced
n u m e ro u s f

ig u re s h a n g in g f

ro m tr e e s o n th e p ri v a te p ro p e rt ie s o f c e rt a in d e f

e n d a n ts . G o n za lez a n d R aw les, b o th A frican -A m erican s, asso ciated the d isplayw ith “the h ist o ry of B l ack men hangi ng fr om O ak Tre es bythe W hi t es of the South. ” Theycl ai m ed that3

th e h a n g in g f

ig u re s w e re ra c ist, o f

f e n siv e , an in su lt t o th e ir c iv il righ ts, a n d a th re a t to a ll per s ons of col or . W hen theytr i ed t o phot ogr aph the fi gur es atthe B i as K ai l a Tora Pr ep School , theyw er e ac cos t ed byei ghtm en dr es s ed i n verycol or ful cl othi ng, chant i ng i n a for ei gn l anguage , and w avi ng thei rhands i n the ai r . M eanw hi l e, thei rcarw as bl ocked fr om exi t i ng bya parked ca row ned bydefe ndantFei ner . T heycl ai m ed thata man
w ear i ng a s ki m as k w ho w as s i t t i ng i n the dr i ver ’ s s eatof Fei ner ’ s car , poi nt ed a gun a t th e m , tem p o ra rilyp re v e n tin g th e m f ro m lea v in g th e sc e n e . O n c e th e tw o w o m e n m a d e it i nt o thei rcar , defe ndantM ay erappr oache d them, poi nt i ng tw o fi nger s atthem i n a thr eat eni ng m anner . A ts om e poi nt , G onzal ez a nd R aw l es w er e abl e t o l eave . T hey dr ove t o anotherpr opertyt o phot ogr aph hangi ng fi gur es on tr ees , w her e a l i t t l e boy poi nt ed a gun w i th a r ed barr el atthem w hi l e a numberof adul t s l ooked on. G onzal ez a n d R a w les im m e d iate lyre p o rte d th e se in c id e n ts to th e L a k e w o o d P o lice , w h o a lleg e d ly did not i nv est i gate the m at t er nor bri ng charges againstthe d efen dan t s. G onzal ez c l ai m ed tw o § 1983 cons pi r aci es and one § 1985( 3) cons pi r acy : ( 1) d e f e n d a n t F e in e r a n d th e u n id e n tifie d m a sk e d d riv e r c o n sp ire d to b lo c k G o n z a lez ’s e x it fr om the s cene i n vi ol at i on of § 1983; ( 2) defe ndant s M ay er , the B i as K ai l a Tora Pr ep S c h o o l, th e K a lu sz n e rs, S c h e n k o lew sk i, an d T o p a s c o n sp ire d w ith Jo h n M a rsh a ll, D e p u ty C h ief o f th e L a k e w o o d P o lice , to d e p riv e G o n z a lez o f h e r E q u a l P ro tec tio n rig h ts in vi ol at i on of § 1983; and ( 3) M ay er , the B i as K ai l a Tora Pr ep School , the K al us zner s , and Schenkol ew s ki , cons pi r ed w i th Pol i ce Chi ef Lynch and D eputyC hi ef M ar s hal l of theT o th e e x ten t th a t G o n z a lez a p p e a ls th e o rd e r d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t as to 2 T opas , w e w i l l aff

i r m . G onzal ez c l ai m s thatT opas cons pi r ed w i th otheri ndi vi dual s and cert ai n m ember s of the Lakew ood Pol i ce t o depr i ve G onzal ez of herci vi l r i ght s . T he a lleg a tio n s a g a in st R e u e l T o p a s, a n a tto rn e y , p e rta in to h is re p re se n tatio n o f c e rta in d e f e n d a n ts in a re late d M u n icip a l C o u rt p ro c e e d in g . H is re p re se n tatio n o f c e rta in defe ndant s i n m uni ci pal court , al one, does notr enderT opas a “pe r s on act i ng undercol or o f state law ” u n d er § 1 9 8 3 . S ee P o lk C o u n tyv . D o d so n , 4 5 4 U . S . 3 1 2 , 3 2 5 (19 8 1 ) (a pr i vat e att orney , even i f appoi nt ed and pa i d forbythe s t at e, i s notact i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw w hen per form i ng hi s funct i on as couns el ) . A nd, w e fi nd no otherevi dence on this recor d o f anynex us betw een T op as and the L akew oo d P oli ce suffici ent t o est abli sh th a t T o p a s c o n sp ire d w ith th e L a k e w o o d P o lice to d e p riv e G o n z a lez o f h e r c iv il righ ts u n d er § § 1 9 8 3 o r 19 8 5 (3). 4 L akew ood Pol i ce t o vi ol at e herci vi l r i ght s . She al s o cl ai m ed fa l s e i m pr i s onm entand i ntent i on al i nfli ct i on of em oti on al dis tres s. In Jul y20 00 , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed d efen dan tT op as’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss G onzal ez’ s or i gi nal compl ai ntpur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) and deni ed di s m i s s al as t o t he r emai ni ng defe ndant s . U pon compl et i on of di s covery , the 2 d ef en d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t and to d ism iss. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i on i n favorof al l defe ndant s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed C ountV of G onzal ez’ s C om pl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed under the C i vil R i gh t s A ctof 1 96 4, 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0a. V i ew i ng the fa ct s i n the l i gh tm ost favo rabl e t o G on zal ez, the D i stri ctC ou rtheld that there w as no ev i den ce t o est abli sh under§ 1983 thatanyof the Lakew ood Pol i ce D epart m entdefe ndant s depr i ved G onzal ez o f h er righ ts gran ted b ythe E q u al P rotec ti o n C laus e. T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that there
w as no r ecor d evi dence t o s uppor tG onzal ez’ s cl ai m thatthe Lakew ood Pol i ce5

D epart m entm ai nt ai ned a r ace - bas ed di s cr i m i nat orypol i cy . Speci fi cal l y , the D i s tr i ct C our tfound thatL akew ood D eputyC hi ef M ar s hal l i m m edi at el yr es ponded t o and act i vel yi nves t i gat ed hercompl ai nt . H e al s o ul t i m at el yas s i s t ed G onzal ez ( al ong w i th her co-pl ai nti ff R aw l es) i n fil i ng a cri m i nal com plai nt agai nstvari ou s m em bers of the Jew i sh
comm uni ty , i ncl udi ng s ever al of the def endant s . A s forthe § 1983 cl ai m s agai ns tPol i ce C h a p lain s F e in e r a n d S c h e n k o lew sk i, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t th e re c o rd w a s d e v o id of anyevi dence thatei therdefe ndantact ed i n hi s capa ci tyas pol i ce c hapl ai n t o depr i ve G o n z a lez o f

h e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, a n d th u s G o n z a lez f a iled to sta te a § 1 9 8 3 c laim
a g a i n s tth e s e d e f

e n d a n t s . F i n a l l y , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d a l l o f th e r e ma i n i n g c l a i ms ag ains t th e p ri v ate p rop ertyo w n ers u p o n w h o se lan d the tree s w ith h an g ing fig u res w ere l ocat ed, beca us e ac t i ons of pr i vat e ci t i zens , w i thoutanys how i ng of s t at e ac t i on, do not g i v e r i s e t o a c o g n i z a b l e § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m. B yor derent er ed on D ece m ber10, 2001, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the C om pl ai nt , decl i ni ng t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthe s t at e l aw cl ai m s . B as ed on G onzal ez’ s hi s t oryof fi l i ng atl eas ts i x fr i vol ous l aw s ui t s s i nce 1993, and on a f i ndi ng thats uch fr i vol ous l aw s ui t s ar e a w as t e of the court ’ s val uabl e as s et s of t i m e and a t t ent i on t o otherl i t i gant s , the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o i s s ued an i nj unct i on r es tr ai ni ng G onzal ez f r om m aking an ynew fi l i ng s i n the D i stri ctC ou rtfor the D i stri ctof N ew Jer seyw i tho ut fi rs tO n J ul y19, 2002 the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed G onzal ez’ s m ot i on forext ens i on of 3 tim e to f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l, an d th u s h e r n o tice o f a p p e a l, file d o n Ja n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , is t i m e l y. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th is a p p e a l ev e n th o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id

4 n o t ex p licitlyd isp o se o f th e “ c o u n ter -c laim s” ra ise d b yT o p a s in h is A n sw e r. In h is “A nsw er, A ffi rm at i ve D efen ses and C ou nter cl ai m , ” T op as r ai sed t he af fi rm at i ve d efen se of “the doctr i ne of f

r i vol ous act i ons ” and pr es ent ed thr ee c ount er cl ai m s , al l of w hi ch reit era ted th e f

ac tual b asis su p p o rt ing the a ff irm ati v e d ef

en se. B ec au se th e “ co u n tercl ai m s ” w er e mer el yr es t at ement s of Topas’ s aff i r m at i ve def

ens e, theyr equi r ed no further act i on bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe s ui tw as t erm i nat ed upon the entryof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n D ece m ber2001. 6 o b tain in g th e D istric t C o u rt’s a p p ro v a l. G o n z a lez f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 3 4 W e e xe r c i s e pl e na r yr e vi e w ov e ra n o r de rgr a nt i ng s umm a ryj ud gmen t . G FL A d v an tage F u n d , L td. v. C o lkitt, 2 7 2 F . 3 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 8 -99 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is p ro p e r w h e n th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v a n t is ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . I d. at199. W e vi ew the evi dence i n the l i ght
m os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovant . I d. W hen a movants how s the abs ence of a ge nui ne iss u e , h o w e v e r, th e b u rd e n sh if ts to th e n o n m o v a n t to p re se n t ev id e n c e su f f icie n t to perm i ta j uryt o fi nd i n herfavor . I d. O urr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) i s l i kew i s e pl enary . G al l o v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a, 161 F. 3d 217, 221 ( 3d. C i r . 1998) . W e ac ceptas true al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n the compl ai ntand w i l l aff

i r m a di s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) onl yi f i ti s cert ai n thatno r el i ef can be gr ant ed underanys etof fa ct s w hi ch coul d be pr oved. St eamfi t t er s L ocal U ni on N o . 4 2 0 We l f

a r e F u n d v . P h i l l i p Mo rr i s I n c . , 1 7 1 F . 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 9 ( 3 d . C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) . We
rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i ssu an ce o f a p re-fil ing injun cti o n fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . In7

R e P ac k er A v e. A sso ciates, 88 4 F . 2 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 6 -47 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). A ft era ca r eful and i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e w i l l aff i r m j udgm enton a ll § 1 9 8 3 c laim s a s to a ll o f th e d e f e n d a n ts f o r th e re a so n s s tate d b yth e D istric t C o u rt in i t s m emora ndum opi ni on, exce ptw i th r egar d t o G onzal ez’ s cons pi r acycl ai m s under§§ 1 9 8 3 a n d 1 9 8 5 ( 3 ) , wh i c h we wi l l d i s c u s s f u r th e rb e l o w. W e f in d n o re c o rd e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g G o n z a lez ’s § 1 9 8 3 c o n sp ira c yc laim
a g a in st L a k e w o o d P o lice C h a p lain F e in e r a n d th e u n n a m e d m a sk e d m a n sittin g in Fei ner ’ s car . E ven as s um i ng G onzal ez’ s ar gum entthatFei nerw as pr es entw hen the
m ask ed m an tem p o raril yb lock ed G o n za lez’s ex ito n M arc h 1 2 , 1 9 9 8 , w e f ind n o rec o rd evi dence of a r ace - bas ed mot i ve forthe eve nt s i n ques t i on orof an a gr eementbetw een F eine r an d the u n iden ti fied m an to d ep ri v e G o n za lez o f h er c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts un d er § 1 9 8 3 . D av is v. T o w n sh ip o f H il lsi d e, 19 0 F . 3 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). G o n z a lez w o u ld b e e n tit led to re lief o n h e r § 1 9 8 3 c o n sp ira c yc laim a g a in st p riv a te defe ndant s M ay er , the B i as K al i a Tora Pr ep School , and the K al us zner s i f s he coul d s how thatthes e def

endant s s om ehow r eac hed an unde r s t andi ng w i th atl eas tone of the L akew ood Pol i ce D efe ndant s t o denyG onzal ez of herci vi l r i ght s . See K os tv. K o z a k iew icz , 1 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). “E sta b lish in g th e e x iste n c e o f th is

‘ under s t andi ng, ’ how ever , i s r eal l ynothi ng m or e than anotherw ayt o s how s t at e ac t i on as r e q u i r e d b y§ 1 9 8 3 w h e n a p r i v a t e p a r tyi s a l l e g e d t o h a v e v i o l a t e d th a ts t a tu t e . ” I d . We h a v e a l r e a d y h e l d th a tth e D i s tr i c tC o u r tp r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d G o n z a l e z ’ s n o n - c o n s p i r a c y §T hough appel l antnames a “Lakew ood T ow ns hi p Pol i ce Com m i s s i oner ” i n the 5 c a p tio n o f

th e c o m p lain t, th e re is n o P o lice C o m m iss io n e r e m p lo y e d w ith in th e T o w n sh ip of Lakew ood. 8 1983 cl ai m s beca us e ther e i s no evi dence thatdefe ndant s M ay er , B i as K al i a Tora Pr ep H i gh School , and G i t al and D avi d K al us zyner , al l pr i vat e part i es , w er e “a ct i ng under col orof s t at e l aw ” forthe purpos es of § 1983. I n the abs ence of anyevi dence fr om 5
w hi ch a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d det erm i ne otherw i s e, w e fi nd no nexus betw een the L akew ood Pol i ce D efe ndant s and the al l eged a ct i ons of the pr i vat e def endant s s uch that the p ri v ate d ef

en d an ts m ayb e f

airl ytr ea ted a s “state a ctors.” A n d thu s the D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n the def endant s ’ favoras t o the § 1983 cons pi r acy c l a i m. L i kew i s e, w i th r es pectt o the § 1985( 3) cons pi r acycl ai m , w e fi nd no evi dence on thi s r ecor d of a c ons pi r acybetw een a nyof the pr i vat e def endant s and the Lakew ood Pol i ce. M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence s uffi ci entt o r ai s e an i nfer ence of a r ace - bas ed
m ot i ve forthe ac t i ons al l eged i n t he C om pl ai nt . G r i ffi n v. B r ecke nr i dge, 403 U . S. 88, 1 0 2 (19 7 1 ). T u rn in g to th e in

ju n c tio n , w e h a v e lo n g re c o g n ize d th a t a p re -f ili n g in ju n c tio n is
a n e x tre m e re m e d yw h ich m u st b e “ ‘n a rro w lytailo re d a n d sp a rin g lyu se d .’” A b d u lA kbarv. W at s on, 901 F. 2d 329, 332 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( quot i ng I n R e Packe rA ve. A s s oci at es , 884 F. 2d 745, 747 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ) . Suffi ci entnot i ce a nd oppor tuni tyt o be h ea rd a re e ssen ti al pre req u isi tes t o the e n tryo f a p re-fil ing injun cti o n . S ee In re O li v er,9

6 8 2 F . 2 d 4 4 3 , 4 4 5 -44 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). In A b d u l- A k b ar, w e h eld th at w h en a d istri ct co u rt concl udes thata l i t i ganthas abus ed the j udi ci al pr oces s byfi l i ng fr i vol ous l aw s ui t s and
w i l l cont i nue t o fi l e s uch l aw s ui t s unl es s r es tr ai ned, the courtm ayent eran i nj unct i on d ire c tin g th a t. th e lit ig a n t n o t f

ile a n y§ 1 9 8 3 c laim s w ith o u t lea v e o f c o u rt a n d th a t in s eeki ng l eave of court , the l i t i gantm us tcert i fy( 1) thatthe cl ai m s he w i s hes to p re se n t ar e n e w c laim s n e v e r b e f o re ra ise d a n d d isp o se d o f o n th e m e rits byanyfede r al court s , ( 2) thathe bel i eves the fa ct s al l eged i n hi s compl ai nt to b e true , an d (3) h e k n o w s o f n o rea so n to b eli ev e h is cl aim s are for ecl os ed bycontr ol l i ng l aw . Such an i nj unct i on s houl d s t at e thatupon a f a ilu re to c e rtify or u p o n a f a lse c e rtific a tio n , the lit ig a n t m a yb e f o u n d in c o n t e m p to f

c o u r ta n d p u n i s h e d a c c o r d i n g l y. 901 F. 2d at333. A pr e- fi l i ng i nj unct i on i s an exc ept i on t o the gene r al rul e of f r ee a cce s s t o the
co u rt s an d it s u se a g ains t a pro se p lai n ti ff m u st be ap p roa ch ed w ith ca u ti o n . S ee In re O l i ver , 682 F. 2d at445. H er e the D i s tr i ctC our ts ua s pont e enj oi ned G onzal ez “ fr om m aki ng anynew fi l i ngs i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey
w i thoutfi r s tobt ai ni ng the appr oval of thi s C our t . ” Fi r s t , w e ques t i on w hethera pr e- fi l i ng i nj unct i on i s w arr ant ed bas ed on G onzal ez’ s hi s t oryof fi l i ng s i x fr i vol ous cas es i n t en y ea rs. In a n yev en t, w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in f ail ing to af

fo rd G o n z a lez th e n o tice a n d o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d th a t ar e re q u ire d w h e n in ju n c tio n s o f

th is typ e a re c o n s id e re d . S e e , e .g ., G a g lia rd i v . M c W illia m s , 8 3 4 F .2 d 8 1 , 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). M or eover , the i nj unct i on i s t oo br oad and i tfai l s t o pr oper l ynot i fyG onzal ez thats he
c o u ld b e h e ld in c o n tem p t an d p u n ish e d f o r v io latin g th e o rd e r. T h e re f o re , w e w ill v a c a tethe D istri ct C o u rt ’s pre -fil ing injun cti o n o rde r.

Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng al l of G onzal ez’ s cl ai m s as t o al l defe ndant s . W e w i l l vaca t e the pr e- fi l i ng i nj unct i on or derand r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th thi s opi ni on.