Brennan v. William Paterson College
34 F. Supp. 3d 416
D.N.J.2014Background
- Brennan produces a local political TV program and requested access to a public‑access channel operated by William Paterson University (WPU) under Wayne Township’s franchise.
- WPU staff (Gorski and Miller) refused to air an episode, citing WPU guidelines (allowing rejection/editing for “good broadcasting practices and taste”) and Wayne ordinance restricting candidate participation.
- Brennan amended his complaint after obtaining WPU’s WPTV Operating Policies, Procedures and Guidelines and sued Wayne, WPU, and the two WPU employees for First Amendment, New Jersey constitutional, and Cable Act violations.
- Wayne moved to dismiss monetary damages and fees under 47 U.S.C. § 555a(a); WPU moved to dismiss on multiple grounds including law‑of‑the‑case, vagueness, prior restraint, conspiracy, and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- The court held § 555a(a) bars money damages against a governmental franchising authority (Wayne) but reserved decision on attorney’s fees; denied WPU’s dismissal motions (including sovereign immunity) and declined to resolve Brennan’s motion for partial summary judgment as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 555a(a) bars money damages and fees against Wayne | Brennan sought compensatory, punitive damages and § 1988 fees for constitutional and Cable Act violations | Wayne argued § 555a(a) limits relief against franchising authorities to injunctive and declaratory relief only | Court: § 555a(a) bars monetary damages against Wayne; damages dismissed. Fee issue reserved. |
| Whether WPU’s Guidelines are facially invalid as an unbridled prior restraint | Brennan: Guidelines give unfettered editorial discretion ("good taste") and violate First Amendment and Cable Act | WPU: Guidelines are permissible limits in an educational/limited forum and not a cable operator under the Cable Act | Court: Claim is plausible; denial of 12(b)(6). Facial invalidity requires fuller factual record; summary judgment premature. |
| Whether prior judge’s dismissal (Judge Hochberg) controls under law‑of‑the‑case | WPU: earlier dismissal of original complaint forecloses Counts III & IV | Brennan: amended complaint adds WPU Guidelines and new allegations not before prior judge | Court: Law of the case inapplicable because new allegations/guidelines alter factual/legal context; motion denied. |
| Whether WPU and its officers are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity | WPU: as a public university, it and officials are immune from suit in federal court | Brennan: WPU has not shown factors establishing arm‑of‑state immunity | Court: WPU failed to meet burden; motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity denied (may be revisited later). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (federal pleading standards and plausibility)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (attorney’s fees under § 1988 may be available even when damages barred)
- Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (forum analysis for public access channels)
- Coplin v. Fairfield Public Access Television Commission, 111 F.3d 1395 (§ 555a(a) limits recovery to injunctive/declaratory relief)
- Jones Intercable of San Diego v. City of Chula Vista, 80 F.3d 320 (same principle re § 555a(a))
- McClellan v. Cablevision of Conn., 149 F.3d 161 (cable‑service dispute context under § 555a)
- Kovats v. Rutgers, State University, 822 F.2d 1303 (Eleventh Amendment analysis re state universities)