Ron Mills v. State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, 435 N.J. Super. 69

Plaintiffs sued the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, under the Mistaken Imprisonment Act for wrongful arrest and incarceration after a federal investigation led to dismissals of charges against many Camden defendants.
Thirteen plaintiffs filed their complaint in July 2011; the State moved for summary judgment in September 2012, raising, among other things, a verification and statute-of-limitations issue.
The court allowed amendments to add required verifications for Cass, Henderson, and Rolax, but held Hinton's claim was untimely when filed.
The State argued that a guilty plea automatically bars recovery under N.J.S.A. 52:4C-3(c) and moved for summary judgment as to those plaintiffs whose underlying convictions were based on guilty pleas.
The trial court denied summary judgment as to the three remaining plaintiffs but later, on appeal, this Court held that the own-conduct bar applies to guilty-plea cases as a matter of law.
The appellate court affirms in part and reverses in part, determining verification can be cured, tolling may apply, and the guilty-plea bar applies to the remaining plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unverified complaint deprived subject matter jurisdiction	Mills et al. argue lack of verification was curable and jurisdiction preserved.	State argues verification is jurisdictional and untimely amendment cannot relate back.	Verification defect cured; jurisdiction preserved; amendment relates back.
Whether the guilty-plea underlying convictions bar recovery as a matter of law	Guilty pleas should not automatically bar recovery; factual issues may exist.	Guilty pleas trigger the own-conduct bar and preclude recovery as a legal matter.	Guilty plea precludes recovery under the own-conduct bar as a matter of law.
Whether equitable tolling allows amendment despite the two-year statute of limitations	State delay in raising verification issue warrants tolling and amendment should relate back.	No tolling or prejudice; limitations should bar amendments after expiration.	Equitable tolling applied; amendments allowed for Cass, Henderson, Rolax.

General Trading Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 83 N.J. 122 (1980) (jurisdictional defects may be curable, not always fatal)
State v. Hudson, 209 N.J. 513 (2012) (legislative intent; remedial nature of act; overtones on purpose and liberal construction)
Ciocca v. Hackes, 4 N.J. Super. 28 (App. Div. 1949) (equitable relief against procedural frustration of merits)
State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408 (1990) (adequate factual basis required for guilty pleas)
State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183 (2009) (innocence and guilty pleas; need for factual basis)
State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (2010) (statutory interpretation and intent in reading legal terms)
O'Neill v. State Highway Dep't of N.J., 50 N.J. 307 (1967) (equitable relief limitations on state actions)
Sellers v. Bd. of the Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 399 N.J. Super. 51 (App. Div. 2008) (equitable considerations in public remedies)
Maltese v. Twp. of N. Brunswick, 353 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div. 2002) (compelling circumstances for equity in municipal actions)
Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431 (2013) (remedial interpretation of statutes; liberal construction)