ZOZO MOAWAD VS. JERSEY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS DEPARTMENT (L-2920-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0582-17T4
ZOZO MOAWAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JERSEY CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT RECORDS
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted October 23, 2018 – Decided November 14, 2018
Before Judges Fisher and Geiger.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2920-17.
Zozo Moawad, appellant pro se.
Peter J. Baker, Corporation Counsel, attorney for
respondent (Maura E. Connelly, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Zozo Moawad appeals from a September 29, 2017 order
dismissing his complaint against defendant City of Jersey City (the City),
improperly pleaded as the Jersey City Police Department Records Department,
with prejudice. We affirm.
Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination action in federal court
against her former employer Hugh Best, relating to her employment at the
Children's Academy Daycare Center, alleging her former employer and co-
workers falsely reported her to police for shoplifting on numerous occasions.
Neither the City nor the Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) were parties to
the federal action.
On May 15, 2017, plaintiff served a federal subpoena on the JCPD seeking
"[a]ll and any kinds of police reports and criminal records related to Zozo
Moawad from January 1, 2000 to present." Upon receipt of the subpoena, the
records clerk conducted a search of the JCPD's database, using the names and
employment address provided by plaintiff. The search did not disclose any
responsive records. The records clerk wrote to plaintiff advising her no records
were found using the names provided. The records clerk also advised plaintiff
that if the incident occurred in Bayonne, she would need to contact the Bayonne
A-0582-17T4
2
Police Department. Plaintiff did not submit a request under the Open Public
Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, to the City or the JCPD.
Plaintiff made an OPRA request for documents to the Hudson County
Prosecutor's Office, a governmental entity separate and distinct from the J CPD.
The OPRA request sought "[a]ll and any kinds of police reports and criminal
records related to Zozo Moawad from January 1, 2000 to present." An assistant
prosecutor responded in writing to the OPRA request, informing plaintiff "there
are no records in the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office that would be
responsive to your request," and that plaintiff's name was not listed "in any
database as a defendant in this office."
On July 13, 2017, plaintiff filed this action against the JCPD Records
Department, alleging
I sent a subpoena to the JCPD to release the false police
reports that were filed against me during my
employment at the Children's Academy, Daycare in
Jersey City. The police department denied having any
reports. I then [sent] an OPRA to the Office of the
Hudson County Prosecutor. The assistant Prosecutor
sent me a letter stating that I may take my appeal to the
Government Records Council and the Superior Court.
I sent a letter to the Government Records Council and
they replied stating that I can send the form of denial
[of] access to Public Records but it would be faster to
send it to the Superior Court in my county, because the
court can assess my common law right of access.
A-0582-17T4
3
Plaintiff further alleged the reports she sought "are crucial pieces of evidence
for my lawsuit against my former employer" and the refusal to release the reports
"hurt" her lawsuit.
The trial court issued an order to show cause in favor of plaintiff. The
City moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:6-
2(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Following
oral argument, the trial court issued an oral decision and order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. In its oral decision, the trial court explained
to plaintiff she had options in federal court to enforce the federal subpoena, but
she could not sue the JCPD in State court to enforce the subpoena because it is
not a cause of action under New Jersey law. The judge also noted plaintiff did
not serve an OPRA request on the City, and the OPRA request served on the
Hudson County Prosecutor's Office involved a separate entity. Finding plaintiff
had failed to state a claim, the judge granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal
followed.
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting dismissal because it said
during oral argument there might be some records in the Police Department, and
plaintiff requested all kinds of records.
A-0582-17T4
4
A reviewing court assessing the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 4:6-
2(e) must "search the complaint 'in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether
the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure
statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary.'" Banco
Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 165 (2005) (quoting Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)). The review must
be performed in a manner that is "generous and hospitable." Printing Mart, 116
N.J. at 746. Our role is simply to determine whether a cause of action is
"suggested" by the complaint. Ibid. (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive
Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988)). "[I]f the complaint states no basis for relief and
discovery would not provide one, dismissal is the appropriate remedy." Banco
Popular N. Am., 184 N.J. at 166 (citing Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt.
4.1 on R. 4:6-2 (2005)).
Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate since amending the
complaint would be futile. Plaintiff's remedy, if any, is to enforce the subpoena
in federal court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, not in the Superior Court of New
Jersey.
A-0582-17T4
5
Plaintiff's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in
a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0582-17T4
6