SAM RUSSO VS. PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP(L-794-11, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1564-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 16, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sam Russo owns a 100-acre farm adjoining a residential development; neighbors complained about noise from dirt bikes on his property in 2009.
- Plumsted Township Public Safety Director Michael Lynch accompanied police and the zoning officer to Russo's farm on Feb. 15, 2009 to discuss noise complaints; officers later visited again and issued summonses to riders, not Russo.
- An Ocean County sheriff aerial surveillance in March 2009 (for suspected illegal dumping) did not mention Lynch.
- Russo filed suit in 2011 alleging Lynch acted ultra vires and conspired to harm his farm business and constitutional rights, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985–86, malicious prosecution, negligence, tortious interference, and related torts.
- Judge Den Uyl granted summary judgment to Lynch (Nov. 17, 2015), finding Russo produced no competent evidence tying Lynch to unlawful acts (no orders to issue summonses, no involvement in aerial surveillance), and denied Russo's request to extend discovery after the court-ordered discovery deadline.
- Russo appealed the grant of summary judgment and the denial of additional discovery; the Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing there were no genuine material facts and no abuse of discretion in denying extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lynch acted beyond statutory authority / under color of law to violate Russo's rights (§ 1983, § 1985/86) | Lynch personally orchestrated enforcement and directed unlawful investigatory/ enforcement acts that deprived Russo of rights | Lynch merely participated in a meeting, explained ordinance, and directed officers to respond to complaints — did not personally arrest, issue summonses, or order aerial surveillance | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; Lynch's conduct fell within public safety director role and was not actionable |
| Malicious prosecution / initiation of proceedings | Lynch caused issuance of summonses and proceedings against Russo | Summonses were issued only to dirt-bike riders; Lynch did not initiate prosecution against Russo | Court: Russo produced no competent evidence that Lynch initiated criminal/civil proceedings against him |
| State tort claims (negligence, tortious interference, emotional distress) | Lynch's alleged conspiracy and actions harmed Russo's business and health; caused lost income | No competent evidence linking Lynch to the alleged conduct harming Russo's economic interests | Court: No material factual showing to send claims to jury; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether discovery period should be extended after July 1, 2015 deadline | Substituted counsel and need to develop facts warranted extension; Lynch's counsel consented to some depositions | Case was four years old; little discovery had been done earlier; substituted counsel entered after deadline; no showing of exceptional circumstances | Court: Denial of extension affirmed; no abuse of discretion and no exceptional circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (review standard for summary judgment)
- Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (summary judgment standard guidance)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (insubstantial factual disputes do not defeat summary judgment)
- Judson v. People's Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 (standard for summary judgment and material fact inquiry)
- Jordan v. Harvey, 381 N.J. Super. 112 (public safety director may not perform police-only functions)
- Rivers v. LSC P'Ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68 (substitution of counsel not ordinarily "exceptional circumstances" to extend discovery)
- Huszar v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 375 N.J. Super. 463 (delay attributable to counsel does not satisfy "exceptional circumstances")
- Zadigan v. Cole, 369 N.J. Super. 123 (need showing circumstances were beyond control to justify extension)