Motel Owner's Civil Rights Suit Against Absecon Police Moves Forward
A federal judge in New Jersey has declined to dismiss a suit against two local police officers accused of using unreasonable force when they wrestled a motel owner to the ground, shattering his shoulder.
February 20, 2018 at 06:08 PM
4 minute read
U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler
A federal judge in New Jersey has declined to dismiss a suit against two local police officers accused of using unreasonable force when they wrestled a motel owner to the ground, shattering his shoulder.
U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler, sitting in Camden, ruled that two Absecon police officers, Laura Winkel and Kevin Craig, must face claims that they violated plaintiff Rohit Surti's constitutional rights by subjecting him to excessive force during the course of an arrest.
“[I] do not find that officers Craig and Winkel used an objectively reasonable amount of force to arrest Mr. Surti,” Kugler said, denying summary judgment.
Kugler also ruled that Absecon itself should be offered immunity since Surti could not demonstrate that the police department failed to properly train the officers in the use of force. But If Kugler's ruling ultimately stands, the city could still be required to indemnify the two officers for any damages.
The matter concerns incidents that occurred on June 18, 2013, according to the decision. At the time, Surti was the owner of a Budget Inn in Absecon.
At around 8:30 p.m., Winkel issued a summons for receiving stolen property after she noticed a Dollar Store shopping cart on the motel grounds. She previously had warned Surti about having shopping carts on the motel grounds.
About an hour later, the police received another call saying there was an altercation at the motel between Surti and another man, Sydney Atkins, who had been living at the motel for about six weeks, according to Kugler. Craig and Winkel responded to the call. Those involved have presented differing scenarios as to whether Surti assaulted Atkins or Atkins attacked Surti, the judge said.
The lawsuit alleges that Surti became agitated, which led to warnings from Craig and Winkel to calm down.
What happened next is undisputed, Kugler noted: the officers used pepper spray and then, combining their physical forces, brought Surti to the ground. His shoulder was broken in four places, his suit alleges.
Surti sued, alleging violations of his civil rights. The city and the officers, represented separately, moved for summary judgment.
Kugler dismissed the charges against the city, but declined to dismiss the charges against Craig and Winkel.
There was, Kugler said, no evidence that Surti was threatening the officers or anyone else at the time he was taken down.
“[W]e find that the defendant officers use of force was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances,” Kugler said. “[T]his was not an objectively reasonable use of force.”
Kugler said he could not accept the officers' argument that they were acting in “good faith.”
The defendants contended that Surti couldn't prove his injuries were proximately caused by the officers, based in part on conflicting notes in his medical reports, but Kugler brushed that off.
“Proximate causation is a vague concept, but not so vague as this,” Kugler wrote. “Defendants' argument that Mr. Surti cannot prove proximate causation comes perilously close to the uncertainties of the undergrad who, discovering his eyes play tricks on him from time to time, concludes nothing is real, all is fantasy, and that when you believe someone has thrown you to the ground, that is illusory, for a note elsewhere says otherwise.”
The officers' attorney, Stuart Alterman, who runs a firm in Marlton, said he believes the officers will ultimately be exonerated at trial.
Neither the city's attorney, John Bannan of Reynolds & Horn in Marlton, nor Surti's attorney, Robert Herman of Linwood, returned calls seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250