GUMMER ORDERS

SEPT 27 P2P REFERENDUM

**

HARMON/KAPALKO

FILE NOTICE OF

$4.5 MIL TORT CLAIM

**

First, lawyers for the Borough and the petitioners were in court today about the Show Cause Order for the referendum.  An eyewitness recounts:

The judge ordered the special election for Sept. 27. Plaintiffs could have argued for it to be 10 days earlier which was allowable by law but thought it was not worth making an issue. Sea Bright has a referendum that day and there are several school elections so Monmouth County counsel said it would be more cost effective.

The Judge said April’s certification sent last night did not have the resolution attached. The Judge did get it today but stated that what April said in the resolution did not match the certification. She felt if the council and mayor voted no on the resolution that her July 1 order would not have been followed. She said April did not comply, she said she would not speak to willfulness but April did not comply with her order. That’s why she felt it necessary to order the date for the election and call everyone in to court. Monmouth County Counsel for the Board of Elections was present and the AttorneyGeneral was on the phone, as well as plaintiffs’ attorney Ed Bonanno and the Borough’s attorney.

Interestingly the Borough’s counsel said the Belmar Council and Mayor might repeal the ordinance on July 20. Mr. Bonanno stood up and said according to the Faulkner Act that time has passed because they only had 20 days from when the petition was certified. The Judge said she would not address that issue as it was not before the Court and they could file a brief. BTW, Bonanno also said the Committee of Petitioners could not withdraw the petition either due to the time limit having passed.

Because of what happened with the pavilion referendum, a plaintiff asked counsel if they could put something in the order about the explanatory statement. Defendant’s counsel at first first said yes they definitely wanted an explanatory statement. The Judge  said to defendant’s counsel that she thought that was why they spent all this time on the order for the ballot. The defendant’s counsel then backtracked and said well she really did not know for sure if they want an explanatory statement. But again the Judge decided it was not before the court and she would not make a decision on a hypothetical issue.

The reading of the final Susko decisions, which was scheduled for today, was cancelled because these other issues took so long.

Finally the Judge awarded the plaintiffs legal fees because April did not comply with her order. That was a surprise because this had nothing to do with a civil rights claim and the plaintiffs did not ask for fees.*

*Correction:

The plaintiffs were out there to enforce compliance with the July 1 Order, in which the Court held the Borough’s rejection of the petition was a violation of the Civil Rights Act for which Plaintiffs were entitled to the recovery of their fees. The motion to enforce compliance with that Order was simply a continuation of that effort. Moreover, R. 1:10-3, the Court Rule under which the plaintiffs filed the motion to enforce the July 1 Order, also expressly provides for an award of attorneys’ fees. So, it would have been more surprising if the Court had not awarded Plaintiffs’ their fees.

Here is today’s order:

The other big news today is that the parties involved in the denial of the liquor license transfer from 507 Main to Salt were served with a notice of Tort Claim for $4.5 million and growing:

Click on the image to open it in Google Drive.