MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC VS. AMMONSÂ SUPERMARKET, INC.(L-1477-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
165 A.3d 821
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Main Street, Commons, and Crossings (plaintiffs) proposed a large shopping complex in Woolwich Township; the Woolwich Board approved an original GDP in 2010 and an amended GDP in 2012 after learning a Wal‑Mart would be a tenant.
- Ammons Supermarket, Benjamin Ammons, and attorney R.S. Gasiorowski (defendants) sued in January 2013 challenging the GDP and related approvals; the Ammons suit was consolidated with a similar resident challenge and later dismissed on summary judgment by the Chancery Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the Ammons/Pagano challenge in August 2015.
- Plaintiffs then sued Ammons and Gasiorowski for malicious abuse of process, tortious interference with prospective contracts, and civil conspiracy, alleging the Ammons litigation was sham litigation aimed at blocking competition (ShopRite/Wakefern protecting market share).
- The motion judge dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint under Rule 4:6‑2(e), finding Noerr‑Pennington immunity applied and that the Ammons litigation was not objectively baseless; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded on limited grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Noerr‑Pennington bars plaintiffs’ state‑law tort claims arising from defendants’ petitioning activity | Noerr immunity does not apply because defendants’ suit was a sham and part of a pattern of meritless filings intended to injure competitors | Noerr‑Pennington protects petitioning activity, so plaintiffs’ abuse‑of‑process and interference claims fail | Court: Noerr applies generally, but judge failed to analyze the sham exception properly; remanded to consider pattern‑of‑filings/sham allegations (adopts Hanover approach for series of filings) |
| Whether the Ammons litigation was objectively baseless (sham) | The Ammons suit and appeal were meritless; prior rulings and a pattern of similar challenges show a course of sham litigation | The Ammons filings raised colorable issues and the defendants had standing; single suit does not show sham | Court: Motion judge made unsupported conclusory findings and neglected to consider prior dismissal and plaintiffs’ pattern allegations; remand required to evaluate objective baselessness and pattern evidence |
| Whether allegations suffice to state malicious abuse of process | Plaintiffs alleged improper purpose, continuation of litigation, appeal while negotiating leases, and other post‑filing acts showing misuse of process | Defendants contend litigation was legitimate petitioning and plaintiffs fail to show further wrongful acts after process issuance | Court: Declines to resolve insufficiency now; instructs that on remand the trial court must draw all reasonable inferences for plaintiffs and examine alleged further acts |
| Whether tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims survive dismissal | Interference claim is founded on alleged improper motive and wrongful acts in litigation that delayed/deprived plaintiffs of lease opportunities; conspiracy depends on underlying torts | Defendants argue the petitioning was lawful and Noerr precludes related tort claims | Court: Remand to evaluate interference and conspiracy claims if sham/abuse claims survive; relevant factors include motive, nature of conduct, and proximate relation to interference |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (establishes immunity for petitioning government)
- United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (extends petitioning immunity principles)
- Prof'l Real Estate Inv'rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (sham‑litigation test: objectively baseless then improper motive)
- California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (pattern of repetitive baseless filings can constitute sham)
- Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2015) (when a series of filings is alleged, apply a holistic standard considering patterns/win‑loss as circumstantial evidence)
- Waugh Chapel South, LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 27, 728 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2013) (pattern of largely unsuccessful proceedings probative of sham)
- Printing Mart‑Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (Rule 4:6‑2(e) dismissal standard: courts must liberally draw inferences for plaintiffs)
- Fraser v. Bovino, 317 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 1998) (Noerr‑Pennington applied to land‑use objectors; sham exception recognized)