Last year the count alleging 1st Amendment violations also survived a dismissal motion so going forward we have three counts that will need to be adjudicated.
Will keep you all in the loop.
-
Pages
Recent Comments
-
No recent comment found.
Archives
- January 2022
- December 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
7 Comments
At the end of the denial to dismiss:
“At oral argument, counsel for Defendant Matthew Doherty argued for the first time that Counts X and XI should be dismissed as interposed against Doherty in his individual capacity because Doherty was not a party to the Redevelopment Agreement. Since this argument was not raised in Doherty’s limited briefing (ECF No. 100) and Plaintiffs were not afforded an opportunity to respond to same, the Court will not dismiss the claims against Doherty at this time. Doherty will have an opportunity to appropriately move for dismissal on these grounds later in the litigation,
he so wishes.”
His name should be the only one listed at Defendant. Q#1- Do the townsfolk have any say in what/if any settlement should be accepted? If not, who has final say in settlement on part of town? Mayor? If so, what would preclude former mayor from giving present mayor a gift, say Shoprite gift card, to make this go away? Taxes….. can you say “up, up and away.” Blame next tax increase on settlement rather that the lack of cuts.
Doherty was driving the Belmar development train, period. Every single time anyone wanted to inquire or speak to Code Enforcement on their development were immediately directed to speak to Doherty and were refused otherwise.
How else do you think Doherty got a bigger house on Inlet Terrace, a pool and a boat. Oh that’s right, Chefs International.
Phney chief Huseman, Dohery, Connelly, McGovern, Nicolay etc. should all pay the Harmons out of their pockets not the taxpayers.
#4 i guess then it was chef’s international, now it is sachem pond aka matrix development group
No evidence of anything of the sort. I’m sure Maggie is making enough to pay for everything they have.
Post a Comment