Luis Perez v. Zagami, LLC (071358)
218 N.J. 202
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Perez opposed Zagami’s 2006 liquor-license renewal, accusing Zagami of fire-safety violations, serving to intoxicated patrons, and encouraging harm to customers at a Glassboro hearing.
- Zagami sued Perez for defamation; Perez sought dismissal citing absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
- Zagami’s motion to dismiss the malicious-use-of-process claim was granted; Perez sought to amend to add CRA claim against Zagami and the law firm.
- Appellate Division reversed, allowing CRA claim under N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) to proceed against Zagami, interpreting (c) as including private deprivation claims.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether a private CRA action can be brought against a non-state actor; the Court held that private CRA actions require state action, while the Attorney General may sue without color-of-law requirements.
- The decision clarifies that the CRA provides private rights against state-actors only, but empowers the AG to pursue CRA actions against individuals regardless of color of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private CRA actions require state action for all claims | Perez argues deprivation claims may be private regardless of state action | Zagami argues private actions under (c) require color of law | Private CRA action requires state action for deprivation claims |
| Whether the lack of a comma before 'by a person acting under color of law' governs the scope of (c) | Perez relies on punctuation to limit (c) to interference claims | Zagami contends punctuation clarifies separation of clauses | Punctuation does not dictate but legislative history clarifies scope of (c) |
| What is the scope of (c) based on legislative history | CRA intended broader private remedies similar to 1983 | Statutory history shows state action essential for (c) | Legislative history supports state-action requirement for private (c) claims |
| Role of Attorney General under CRA | Private actions should mirror federal 1983 framework | AG may sue regardless of color of law | AG may bring CRA actions irrespective of color-of-law status; private actions require color of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (N.J. 2008) (CRA has broad remedial purpose, not limited by notice requirements)
- Felicioni v. Administrative Office of the Courts, 404 N.J. Super. 382 (App. Div. 2008) (structure of (c) suggests deprivation vs. interference distinction)
- Filgueiras v. Newark Pub. Schs., 426 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2012) (state action required for some CRA claims)
- Rezem Family Assocs. L.P. v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 2011) (CRA implications for private actions under (c))
- State v. O’Driscoll, 215 N.J. 461 (N.J. 2013) (legislative-history-guided interpretation of ambiguous CRA language)
- State v. Buckley, 216 N.J. 249 (N.J. 2013) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of scope of CRA provisions)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (principles against interpreting regulatory schemes through vague terms)
- Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1972) (under color of law concept central to §1983)