SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0556-17T1

CHERI LANE, As Administratrix Ad 

Prosequendum for the heirs-at-law of

Albert Lane, III, deceased, and as 

General Administratrix of the Estate

of Albert Lane, III, Individually, and

DERRICK LANE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

CITY OF CAMDEN, GEORGE 

REESE, ZSAKHEIM JAMES, PAUL 

PRICE, STEPHEN BAKER, MERARI 

PIMENTEL, FERNANDO BADILLO 

and PATRIC COOPER, 

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________________

Argued January 24, 2019 – Decided March 5, 2019

Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3958-15.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0556-17T1

James A. Lewis, V, argued the cause for appellants 

(Pennington Law Group, attorneys; Eric S. Pennington 

and James A. Lewis, V, on the briefs).

Daniel E. Rybeck argued the cause for respondents 

(Weir & Partners, LLP, attorneys; Daniel E. Rybeck 

and Georgios Farmakis, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Cheri Lane (individually and as administratrix of the estate of 

Albert Lane III) and her son, Derrick Lane, appeal from an order granting 

summary judgment to defendants City of Camden and City of Camden police 

officers George Reese, Stephen Baker, Merari Pimental, Fernando Badillo and 

Patric Cooper, and sergeants Zsakheim James and Paul Price, and an order 

denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Because we are convinced the 

court correctly determined plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from relitigating 

issues essential to their asserted causes of action, we affirm.

I.

In our review of the record before the trial court, we view the facts and 

all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the 

parties against whom summary judgment was entered. Brill v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Applying that standard, the record 

before the trial court established the following facts.
3

A-0556-17T1

A. The January 4, 2011 Incident.

On January 4, 2011, Cheri1 was at her Camden home with her adult son,

Albert, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. She took Albert to the hospital 

because she was concerned about his behavior, but hospital employees told her 

there was nothing the hospital could do. 

After returning home, Albert took a large knife from the kitchen and went 

to his upstairs bedroom. Cheri's other son Derrick arrived home, and he and 

Cheri attempted to get Albert to return the knife to the kitchen but Albert was 

not responsive. Cheri called 9-1-1, reporting that Albert was schizophrenic, not 

taking his medication and had a large knife that he would not put down. 

Camden police officers, defendants Badillo, Pimentel, Cooper, Baker and 

Reese, and sergeants, defendants James and Price, arrived at the home. Cheri 

repeated what she reported to the 9-1-1 operator and explained that Albert 

studied martial arts and had injured a police officer during a prior incident. 

James went upstairs and attempted to negotiate with Albert to put the knife 

down, but Albert was unresponsive. James returned downstairs and directed 

Cheri and Derrick to leave the residence. 

 

1

 Because Cheri Lane, Albert Lane III and Derrick Lane share the same surname, 

we refer to them by using their first names for ease of reference. We intend no 

disrespect in doing so. 
4

A-0556-17T1

Reese obtained a ballistics shield and automatic weapon from his police 

car. Armed with a gun and protected by the shield, Price led James and Reese 

up the stairs into the narrow hallway toward the bedroom where Albert was 

located. Albert sat on the bed and first remained unresponsive to James's

commands. Albert then got up from the bed and held the knife. He did not 

respond to Reese's orders to put the knife down.

Armed with the knife, Albert walked toward the bedroom doorway where 

the police officers stood. James instructed Albert to "[s]top it" and drop the 

knife, but Albert continued to move toward the door. According to the officers, 

Albert lunged at them with the knife. Reese and Price fired their weapons a total 

of twelve times. Albert fell to the floor and was handcuffed. James called for 

emergency services. Albert was transported to the hospital where he later died.

Upon hearing the gunshots, Cheri and Derrick attempted to re-enter their 

home. They knocked on the front door, attempted to break down the door and 

Derrick attempted to break through a window. The officers ordered Cheri and 

Derrick to remain outside and informed them they were not allowed to re-enter 

the home, but Derrick broke the front door lock and gained entry. He was 

subdued by the officers, placed in handcuffs and taken to the police station, but 

not charged with any offense. 
5

A-0556-17T1

Cheri also entered the home, where she fought with the officers and 

attempted to trip them. She was also handcuffed and transported to the police 

station, but not charged with any offense.

It was later determined Albert was struck with ten gunshots, including

shots to his back and head. The injuries resulting from the gunshots caused his 

death.

B. Plaintiffs Litigate Their Claims In The United States District Court.

Plaintiffs filed a seventeen count complaint in the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey alleging causes of action arising out of the 

shooting death of Albert and the actions taken against Cheri and Derrick.2 The 

complaint alleged defendants violated plaintiffs' civil rights by subjecting them 

to false arrest, false imprisonment and the use of excessive and deadly force and 

by conspiring to violate their civil rights. Plaintiffs further alleged defendants 

were negligently trained, retained and supervised and that the individual 

defendants failed to intervene to prevent other defendants' violations of 

 

2 The complaint filed in the district court is not included in the record on appeal. 

Our references to and description of the complaint are based on information 

gleaned from the parties' briefs and the district court's order and opinion 

dismissing the complaint. The complaint asserted ten claims founded on alleged 

violations of federal law and seven claims based on alleged violations of New 

Jersey law. 
6

A-0556-17T1

plaintiffs' civil rights. Plaintiffs asserted statutory claims under 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1983 and 1985(3) and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), N.J.S.A. 

10:6-2.

Following the exchange of discovery, defendants moved for summary 

judgment. In a detailed and comprehensive written opinion, the district court 

found that the undisputed evidence established that Albert approached the 

doorway of his bedroom holding a knife and, after being told by James to "[s]top 

it," "just full out lunged with the knife" and was "coming at" James, Price and 

Reese as they stood at the bedroom doorway. It was at that time Price and Reese 

fired their weapons at Albert, hitting him ten times. 

The district court also determined the undisputed evidence established that 

Cheri and Derrick attempted to re-enter the home and were ordered by the 

officers who remained downstairs that they could not re-enter. The evidence 

also established that Cheri and Derrick tried to break down the front door and 

Derrick snapped the lock as the officers attempted to hold the front door shut. 

Cheri admitted fighting with the police officers and attempting to trip them, and 

was handcuffed and placed in a police car. Derrick resisted the officers' efforts 

to keep him outside of the residence and was handcuffed and also placed in a

police car. 
7

A-0556-17T1

The district court found the individual defendants were entitled to 

qualified immunity, shielding them from "liability for civil damages," see also

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)), because they used reasonable force in subduing 

Albert, Cheri and Derrick. The court found that the force employed by the 

officers to secure Cheri and Derrick in handcuffs and remove them from the 

premises was reasonable given the circumstances and Cheri's and Derrick's 

conduct. 

The district court similarly found that the use of deadly force to subdue 

Albert was reasonable. The court explained that the evidence showed Albert 

was five-foot-nine-inches tall and weighed 260 pounds, was diagnosed with 

schizophrenia and possessed a knife with an eight-inch blade. The court further 

determined the undisputed evidence showed Albert "advanced upon" James, 

Price and Reese with the knife, lunged at them with the knife and that the officers 

"acted reasonably in using deadly force." The court also found Albert posed an 

immediate threat and Price and Reese fired their guns "almost simultaneously, 

and there is no evidence [they] continued firing after [Albert] was subdued." 

The court decided that given the danger to James, Price and Reese presented by 

Albert's actions, "it was not unreasonable for [Price and Reese] to discharge 
8

A-0556-17T1

their weapons instead of trying to retreat down the stairs." The district court 

noted that Albert's "death was a tragedy" but found that Price and Reese 

"resorted to deadly force only when they were assaulted with deadly force" and, 

therefore, all of the officers and sergeants present on the scene were therefore 

entitled to qualified immunity related to the alleged use of force resulting in 

Albert's death. 

The district court further determined the same findings of fact required 

dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims that the individual defendants failed to 

intervene in the wrongful conduct of the others, and their negligent hiring, 

training, supervision and retention claims against Camden. The court concluded

that each of those causes of action was also founded on an incorrect premise that 

the officers and sergeants violated plaintiffs' civil rights either by falsely 

arresting and imprisoning Cheri and Derrick or by using excessive force against 

Derrick and them. The court dismissed the claims because the undisputed 

evidence established there was probable cause for the arrests and brief 

imprisonments of Cheri and Derrick, and the use of force against each of the 

plaintiffs was reasonable. 

The district court also dismissed plaintiffs' claim that defendants 

conspired to violate plaintiffs' civil rights, finding plaintiffs did not allege "any 
9

A-0556-17T1

class or race-based motive which would support a Section 1985(3) claim," and 

therefore granted summary judgment to defendants. 

The district court did not decide defendants' request for summary 

judgment on plaintiffs' related state law claims, and dismissed those claims 

without prejudice. The district court entered an order granting defendants'

summary judgment dismissing the ten federal claims asserted in the complaint 

and dismissing the remaining seven state court claims without prejudice. 

Plaintiffs did not appeal the district court's order to the Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit.

C. Plaintiffs' State Court Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Law Division asserting sixteen state law 

claims arising out of the January 4, 2011 incident. Plaintiffs named the same 

defendants as those in the district court action. Plaintiff asserted the following 

claims: violation of the NJCRA (count one); failure to intervene (count two); 

assault and battery (count three); false imprisonment (count four); intentional 

infliction of emotional distress (count five); negligent infliction of emotional 

distress (count six); negligent hiring (count seven); negligent training (count 

eight); negligent supervision (count nine); negligent retention (count ten); false 

arrest (count eleven); municipal and governmental liability (count twelve); civil 
10 A-0556-17T1

conspiracy to commit torts (count thirteen); wrongful death (count fourteen); 

Albert's personal injury under the Survival Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3 (count 

fifteen); and injunctive relief (count sixteen). 

Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs were 

collaterally estopped from prosecuting each of the causes of action based on the 

findings of the district court. The Law Division judge agreed, finding all of 

plaintiffs' claims are based on either the alleged excessive use of force against 

Albert, Cheri and Derrick or the purported false arrests of Cheri and Derrick. 

The judge determined the district court found defendants' use of force was

reasonable and there was probable cause for the arrests of Cheri and Derrick. 

The judge concluded that based on the district court's findings, plaintiffs were 

collaterally estopped from relitigating those essential factual predicates to all of 

their state law claims. 

The judge entered an order granting defendants' summary judgment 

motion and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. The 

court denied the motion and entered an appropriate order. This appeal followed. 

Plaintiffs present the following arguments for our consideration:

POINT I

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED[.]
11 A-0556-17T1

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO GRANT THE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE 

LIMITED BASIS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, 

ONLY, OVERLOOKS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL REMAIN UNMET[.]

A. Plaintffs' Claims Are Not Subject to Collateral 

Estoppel.

(1) The Issues Presently Before the Court were Not 

Decided in the Prior Proceeding[.] 

(2) Plaintiffs' State Law Claims Have Not Been 

Actually Litigated[.]

(3) Plaintiffs are Entitled to a Decision on the Merits 

in Connection with the Allegations Herein [.]

(4) The Prior Proceeding Did Not Resolve the State 

Law Claims and A Decision on the State Law Claims 

was Not "Essential"[.]

(5) The Defendant Officers are liable for acting under 

color of law to deprive Albert of life without 

substantive due process contrary to the New Jersey 

Constitution. 

II.

Our review of an order granting a party summary judgment "is premised 

on the same standard that governs the motion judge's determination." RSI Bank 

v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 234 N.J. 459, 472 (2018). We consider the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine 
12 A-0556-17T1

whether there exist genuine disputes of material fact. Petro-Lubricant Testing 

Labs., Inc. v. Adelman, 233 N.J. 236, 256 (2018); see also Brill, 142 N.J. at 540. 

"A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow 

from established facts are not entitled to any special deference" and are reviewed 

de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 

378 (1995). 

"As a general principle, '[c]ollateral estoppel is that branch of . . . res 

judicata which bars relitigation of any issue which was actually determined in a 

prior action.'" In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co. v. Celotex Asbestos Tr., 

214 N.J. 51, 66 (2013) (quoting Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.D., 207 N.J. 

88, 114 (2011)). Application of collateral estoppel to bar a plaintiff's claims 

presents a "question of law 'to be determined by a judge in the second proceeding 

after weighing the appropriate factors bearing upon the issue.'" Selective Ins. 

Co. v. McAllister, 327 N.J. Super. 168, 173 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting Colucci 

v. Thomas Nicol Asphalt Co., 194 N.J. Super. 510, 518 (App. Div. 1984)). 

Where, as here, the initial litigation is "the subject of a prior federal court 

judgment, the binding effect of that judgment . . . is determined by the law of 

the jurisdiction that rendered it." Integrity Ins. Co., 214 N.J. at 67; see also

Gannon v. Am. Home Prods., 211 N.J. 454, 469 (2012). Thus, to "evaluat[e] 
13 A-0556-17T1

the collateral estoppel effect that . . . must [be] accord[ed]" the district court's 

decision, "the appropriate source of authority is found in the controlling 

decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit." Gannon, 

211 N.J. at 471.

The Third Circuit has held that a party is collaterally estopped from 

relitigating an issue where:

(1) the identical issue was decided in a prior 

adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the 

merits; (3) the party against whom the bar is asserted 

was a party or in privity with a party to the prior 

adjudication; and (4) the party against whom the bar is 

asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the 

issue in question.

[Del. River Port Auth. v. FOP, Penn-Jersey Lodge 30, 

290 F.3d 567, 573 n.10 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Bd. of 

Trs. of Trucking Emps. of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. 

v. Centra, 983 F.2d 495, 505 (3d Cir. 1992)).]

A party establishes an issue is identical under the first prong of the 

standard by demonstrating "that the same general legal rules govern both cases 

and that the facts of both cases are indistinguishable as measured by those rules." 

Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228, 233 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Charles Alan 

Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 

§ 4425 at 253 (1981)); see also Peloro v. United States, 488 F.3d 163, 175-76

n.12 (3d Cir. 2007) (finding that similarity of issues may be shown by the 
14 A-0556-17T1

substantial overlap of the evidence and arguments and the similarity of the 

claims in the two proceedings). The existence of an additional element in a 

federal cause of action as opposed to the analogous state law cause of action 

"does not alter" the fact that the issues are identical. Hailey v. City of Camden, 

650 F. Supp. 2d 349, 356 (D.N.J. 2009) (holding that proving a hostile work 

environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is identical to the analogous cause of action 

under the NJCRA); see also Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 616 F.2d 704, 

708 (3d Cir. 1980) ("The fact that an issue arises in a slightly different context 

does not necessarily mean that collateral estoppel is inapplicable."). "To defeat 

a finding of identity of the issues for preclusion purposes, the difference in the 

applicable legal standards must be substantial." Hailey, 650 F. Supp. 2d at 354 

(citation omitted).

Under the second prong of the standard, the disposition of an issue is 

considered final for collateral estoppel purposes where "the litigation of a 

particular issue has reached such a stage that a court sees no really good reason 

for permitting it to be litigated again." Henglein v. Colt Indus., 260 F.3d 201, 

210 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining Co., 

297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir. 1961)). Collateral estoppel "does not require the entry 

of a judgment, final in the sense of being appealable." Ibid. (quoting In re 
15 A-0556-17T1

Brown, 951 F.2d 564, 569 (3d Cir. 1991)). Thus, collateral estoppel may apply 

"whenever an action is 'sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.'" In 

re Brown, 951 F.2d at 569 (citation omitted) (holding that collateral estoppel 

applied to issues of liability disposed of by grant of summary judgment that was 

not "final for purposes of appeal").

In addition, under the standard's third prong, "there is generally a bar 

against applying collateral estoppel to those who were not parties in the prior 

litigation." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. George V. Hamilton, Inc., 571 F.3d 

299, 310 (3d Cir. 2009). However, an exception to that bar exists "when the 

nonparty is in privity with someone who was a party to the prior suit." Ibid.

(citing Richards v. Jefferson Cty., 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996)).

Finally, "collateral estoppel bars reconsideration of only those issues that 

the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate." In re Braen, 900 F.2d 621, 

628 (3d Cir. 1990). The lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate may be 

shown where "as a result of the conduct of his [or her] adversary or other special 

circumstances," the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted "did not 

have an adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication 

in the initial action." Ibid. (citation omitted).
16 A-0556-17T1

Applying the Third Circuit's standard for collateral estoppel to the causes 

of action asserted in plaintiffs' Law Division complaint, we discern no basis to 

reverse the court's order granting defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs 

argue they are not collaterally estopped from prosecuting their state court claims 

because the district court did not decide the state court claims and instead 

dismissed them without prejudice. Their contention ignores that application of 

collateral estoppel is not limited to prior decisions dismissing identical causes 

of action. "Collateral estoppel prevents the re-litigation of a factual or legal 

issue that was litigated in an earlier proceeding." Doe v. Hesketh, 828 F.3d 159, 

171 3d Cir. (2016); see, e.g., Jones v. UPS, 214 F.3d 402, 406 (3d. Cir. 2000) 

(barring re-litigation of whether the plaintiff was "fully recovered" under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 12101-12213, where a state court 

workers' compensation judge determined the plaintiff was "fully recovered"

pursuant to Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act.).

Here, each of plaintiffs' causes of action is founded on factual and legal 

assertions that are identical to those presented to, and finally decided by, the 

district court. More particularly, plaintiffs' causes of action are dependent on 

the factual assertion that the individual defendants either used excessive or 

unreasonable force against Albert, Cheri and Derrick, or lacked probable cause 
17 A-0556-17T1

to arrest Cheri and Derrick. Stated differently, to succeed on the claims asserted 

in the complaint, plaintiffs are required to establish either that the individuals 

used unreasonable force against Albert, Cheri and Derrick or that the individual 

defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Cheri and Derrick. 3 Plaintiffs 

do not argue to the contrary.

Plaintiffs ignore, however, that the district court has already decided 

those identical issues and, as a result, plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from 

relitigating those issues in the Law Division. The district court determined the 

individual defendants did not use unreasonable or excessive force against 

Albert, Cheri or Derrick, and that there was probable cause for the arrests and 

brief imprisonments of Cheri and Derrick. Thus, although the district court did 

 

3

 Plaintiffs' claimed violations of their constitutional rights under the NJCRA 

(count one) are based on the assertion that the individual defendants used 

excessive force against Albert and lacked probable cause to arrest Cheri and 

Derrick. Similarly, plaintiffs rely on the identical factual allegations to support 

their tort claims: failure to intervene (count two), assault and battery (count 

three), false imprisonment (count four), intentional infliction of emotional 

distress (count five), negligent infliction of emotional distress (count six), false 

arrest (count eleven), conspiracy to commit torts (count thirteen), wrongful 

death (count fourteen), and decedent's personal injury under the Survival Statute 

(count fifteen). Plaintiffs' remaining claims against Camden are also founded 

solely on the individual defendants' alleged use of excessive force and lack of 

probable cause to arrest Cheri and Derrick: negligent hiring (count seven), 

negligent training (count eight), negligent supervision (count nine), negligent 

retention (count ten) and injunctive relief (count sixteen). 
18 A-0556-17T1

not directly decide the state law claims asserted in the federal complaint, it made 

final findings of fact and law that are fatal to each of plaintiffs' state law causes 

of action. That is because without a factual and legal determination that the 

individual defendants either used excessive force or lacked probable cause to 

arrest Cheri or Derrick, plaintiffs are unable to sustain their burden of proving

their asserted causes of action. 

We are therefore convinced the Law Division correctly determined 

plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from re-litigating issues that were finally 

decided by the district court. Moreover, our careful review of each of the causes 

of action in the Law Division complaint makes plain that the district court's final 

disposition of the issues related to the alleged excessive force and lack of 

probable cause require dismissal of plaintiffs' causes of action as a matter of 

law. We therefore affirm the court's order granting defendants' summary 

judgment motion.

Plaintiffs' remaining arguments concerning the court's application of 

collateral estoppel and the court's grant of summary judgment are without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

We add only that because we are convinced the court properly granted 
19 A-0556-17T1

defendants' summary judgment motion, it is unnecessary to address the court's 

order denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Affirmed.