Daniel Tumpson v. James Farina (072813)
95 A.3d 210
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Faulkner Act Hoboken municipality; ordinance Z-88 rent-control amendments; petition filed March 30, 2011 with 1,442 signatures relying on 2007 General Assembly vote tally; clerk later corrected to 2009 tally, revealing required signatures between 1,967 and 2,189; supplemental petition filed July 18, 2011 with additional signatures; clerk initially rejected due to timeliness and insufficiency; trial court ordered clerk to process petition; referendum placed on ballot and passed by voters; Appellate Division affirmed most aspects but vacated civil-rights award; Supreme Court granted review to determine if clerk violated Faulkner Act and whether referendum right is a substantive NJCRA right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City Clerk violated the Faulkner Act by refusing to file a facially deficient petition | Tumpson argues clerk lacked discretion to reject petition that facially lacked signatures | Hoboken contends clerk could refuse facially insufficient petitions to avoid nullifying process | Yes, Clerk violated Faulkner Act by refusing to file the petition |
| Whether the referendum right under the Faulkner Act constitutes a substantive right protected by NJCRA | Right to referendum is a substantive right benefiting voters | NJCRA should not override Faulkner Act procedural framework | Yes, referendum right is a substantive right under NJCRA |
| Whether deprivation of a substantive right entitles plaintiffs to NJCRA attorney’s fees | NJCRA fees should attach when right is deprived and relief granted | Fees limited unless explicit deprivation shown beyond relief obtained | Yes, entitlement to attorney’s fees affirmed and remanded for fee proceedings |
| Whether the Clerk’s good-faith defense on unsettled law barred NJCRA relief | Good-faith position should not preclude relief when right deprived | Good-faith legal position should limit liability | No, good-faith defense does not defeat NJCRA relief; deprivation found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Referendum Petition to Repeal Ordinance 04-75, 192 N.J. 446 (2007) (reaffirmed right of referendum under Faulkner Act)
- In re Petition for Referendum on City of Trenton Ordinance 09-02, 201 N.J. 349 (2010) (referendum power is a direct-democracy remedy)
- Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (U.S. 1997) (Blessing test for substantive rights under 1983-like actions)
- Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (U.S. 2009) (contemporary guidance on remedies and preclusion under complex statutory schemes)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005) (statutory interpretation and extrinsic evidence when plain language ambiguous)
- Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (deprivation before judicial relief can still support relief under §1983)
- Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, 587 F.3d 445 (1st Cir. 2009) (relevance to election-related relief and prevailing-party concept under federal analogy)