INTERNATIONAL BOTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 400 VS. BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS (L-3966-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3565-19

The U.S. Navy leased >10,000 acres at Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Earle in Tinton Falls; Ben Moreell Solar Farm, LLC (lessee) contracted with CS Energy to build and manage a solar power plant.
CS Energy engaged Huen Electric for electrical installation; work completed and the facility was commissioned and connected to the grid in December 2019.
IBEW Local 400 (and two individual plaintiffs) alleged the project lacked required New Jersey electrical permits and sought a stop-work order and declaratory/injunctive relief against the Borough of Tinton Falls, the NJ Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and local construction officials.
Defendants and CS Energy argued the site lies on a federal enclave, federal law/contract control the project, the United States and the lessee (Moreell) were indispensable parties, and state courts lack jurisdiction; CS Energy successfully intervened.
The trial court dismissed under Rule 4:6-2(a), (e), and (f) for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to join indispensable parties; plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and to amend was denied.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding the federal enclave doctrine bars state-law claims on NWS Earle and that adding the United States in state court would be futile because the United States is immune from suit in state court without consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
State-court jurisdiction over claims concerning work on NWS Earle	State still can enforce permitting and safety rules; DCA/Borough have authority	Site is a federal enclave; federal government has exclusive jurisdiction so state courts lack jurisdiction	Held: federal enclave doctrine bars state-law regulation; state court lacked jurisdiction
Indispensable parties (United States and lessee Moreell)	US not necessary until enforcement sought; plaintiffs could amend and remove to federal court or pursue parallel actions	US and Moreell have direct contractual interests; absence impairs relief and adjudication	Held: US and Moreell are necessary; cannot be joined in state court (US immune), so dismissal for failure to join indispensable parties was proper
Leave to amend to add federal parties	Court should permit amendment; plaintiffs could then remove to federal court	Adding US in state court is futile because US cannot be joined there; amendment would be useless	Held: Denied as futile under Notte; amendment would not cure jurisdictional defect
CS Energy's intervention	(Implied) Intervention unnecessary and prejudicial	CS Energy’s interest would be impaired by stop-work relief and was not adequately represented	Held: Intervention proper under Rule 4:33-1; no abuse of discretion in allowing intervention

Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963) (federal enclave doctrine and effect on state jurisdiction)
Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167 (1976) (federal enclaves free from state regulation)
Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382 (1939) (exclusive federal control over suits against the United States)
Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) (United States immune from suit in state court absent consent)
Petition of Salem Transp. Co. of N.J., 55 N.J. 559 (1970) (New Jersey ceded exclusive jurisdiction over ceded federal lands)
Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 334 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 2000) (standard for indispensable parties)
Notte v. Merchs. Mut. Ins. Co., 185 N.J. 490 (2006) (deny leave to amend where amendment would be futile)
Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) (factors for preliminary injunction)