932 F. Supp. 2d 626
D.N.J.2013Background
- Monroe Township maintains a tow-list system and codified approvals for tow operators via an amended 2007 ordinance, § 262-14-G, requiring local, county, and state approvals.
- A-Jacks Towing was excluded from the tow list from December 11, 2007 to December 4, 2008 allegedly for lacking required approvals.
- Plaintiffs allege discriminatory and retaliatory enforcement of towing and zoning laws, asserting First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and due process claims.
- The March 28, 2012 opinion granted summary judgment on some claims and denied others; the current opinion grants amendments to the complaint and revises the equal protection analysis from class-of-one to a selective-enforcement framework.
- Plaintiffs move to revise the March 28, 2012 opinion under Rule 54(b) and to amend the complaint to add a selective nonenforcement claim related to noncompliant wreckers; Defendants oppose as duplicative or futile; the court grants both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether selective-enforcement analysis applies to equal protection claims | Plaintiffs contend the court misapplied the standard and should apply selective enforcement. | Defendants argue the selective-enforcement test does not apply and that rational basis governs. | Selective-enforcement test applied; revised analysis favorable to Plaintiffs. |
| Whether the court properly revised the equal protection ruling to allow most of the claim to proceed | Plaintiffs argue the revised ruling preserves their selective-enforcement claim. | Defendants argue the prior grant should stand or be limited. | Court grants revision; most of the selective-enforcement claim survives. |
| Whether Plaintiffs may amend the complaint to add selective nonenforcement of noncompliant wreckers | Amendment incorporates new evidence and seeks broader relief. | Amendment would be futile, duplicative of prior claims. | Motion to amend granted; new, factually distinct claims allowed. |
| Whether summary-judgment on the tow-list exclusion aspect against Gabbianelli and DePalma should stand | Exclusion was allegedly retaliatory and unequal. | Gabbianelli and DePalma not shown to influence Council decision. | Summary judgment granted for Gabbianelli and DePalma on tow-list exclusion; denied on other aspects of equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (equal protection class-of-one framework; arbitrary discrimination)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (similarly situated inquiry and rational basis concepts)
- Startzell v. City of Philadelphia, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (alike in all relevant aspects; similarly situated standard without requiring identical comparators)
- Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2005) (treats related First Amendment/Equal Protection claims in tandem)
- Aichele v. Department of General Services, 705 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2013) (selective-enforcement test with distinct framework from class-of-one)
- Carlino v. Gloucester City High School, 57 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.N.J. 1999) (illustrative of rational-basis consideration in selective-enforcement contexts)