State of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc.
110 A.3d 92
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- The State (DOT) sued under Rule 4:67 to remove alleged encroachments by Foulke Management on the Route 70 right-of-way and threatened statutory penalties.
- Foulke Management operates car dealerships abutting the right-of-way; citizen complaints prompted DOT enforcement.
- Foulke filed a counterclaim against the Commissioner and a DOT director alleging §1983 and New Jersey constitutional equal protection violations, unjust enrichment, and seeking injunctive relief.
- The State moved to dismiss the counterclaim on qualified immunity and related grounds; the trial court denied dismissal and allowed discovery; the State appealed interlocutorily.
- The Appellate Division reviewed whether (1) Foulke had a constitutionally protected property interest in continuing the encroachment and (2) whether the Contractual Liability Act (CLA) permitted an unjust-enrichment recovery against the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOT officials are entitled to qualified immunity for ordering removal of encroachments | Foulke: enforcement discriminated against it and violated its property/ equal protection rights; it has a cognizable interest in continued use | State: Foulke has no protected property interest in encroaching on State land; qualified immunity therefore bars the suit | DOT officials entitled to qualified immunity; no constitutional right to continue encroachment, so §1983 claim fails |
| Whether unjust-enrichment claim can proceed against the State under the CLA | Foulke: maintained and improved State property and should recover under unjust enrichment | State: CLA waives immunity only for express or implied-in-fact contracts, not for quasi-contract/unjust-enrichment claims | CLA bars recovery on an implied-in-law (quasi-contract) unjust-enrichment theory against the State |
| Availability of injunctive relief to Foulke | Foulke: seeks injunctive relief to prevent removal/enforcement | State: if State boundary is correct, no entitlement to injunctive relief; qualified immunity doesn't preclude equitable relief but no basis here | No basis on this record for injunctive relief because Foulke has no proven right to continue encroachment |
| Whether counterclaim should survive pleading stage and discovery | Foulke: facts suggest discriminatory enforcement and disputed boundary; discovery needed | State: dismissal appropriate because no colorable constitutional or quasi-contract claim; immunity applies as a matter of law | Counterclaim dismissed; discovery against DOT officials may not proceed on these theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two‑pronged qualified immunity framework asking whether a constitutional right was violated and whether it was clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (trial courts may address qualified immunity prongs in either order)
- Printing‑Mart Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (pleading standard: complaint searched in depth and liberally for any cause of action)
- Patton v. North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Com., 93 N.J. 180 (1983) (adverse possession does not run against the State)
- County of Hudson v. State, 208 N.J. 1 (2011) (CLA effects a limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Allen v. Fauver, 167 N.J. 69 (2001) (CLA does not waive immunity for claims based on contracts implied in law)
- Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427 (1992) (elements and purpose of unjust‑enrichment relief)