Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. County of Bergen
162 A.3d 291
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Stop & Shop requested county records (OPRA) about Inserra’s ShopRite site plan in 2011 and received some documents in August 2011.
- In June–July 2014 Stop & Shop requested additional records and received traffic-related documents on July 3, 2014 that had not been produced earlier.
- Stop & Shop notified the Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders, which admitted and considered those documents at its July 16, 2014 hearing and during its de novo review before approving the site plan on August 20, 2014.
- Two days before the Board’s approval, Stop & Shop filed a declaratory-judgment action under OPRA seeking a declaration that the county defendants violated OPRA and requesting attorneys’ fees.
- The Law Division dismissed the OPRA suit as moot because Stop & Shop already had obtained the requested records prior to filing, and therefore was not a prevailing party entitled to counsel fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OPRA suit was justiciable or moot | Stop & Shop argued it had a live controversy because it sought a declaratory ruling that documents should have been produced earlier and that delay affected its administrative hearing | County argued records were produced before suit, so no live controversy; dismissal appropriate | Court held action was moot because Stop & Shop already had the records before filing, so no effective relief could be granted |
| Whether Stop & Shop is entitled to attorneys’ fees under OPRA | Stop & Shop sought fees under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 as a prevailing party | County argued plaintiff did not prevail because there was no judicial order or causation between suit and production; voluntary pre-suit production bars fees | Court held no fee award: plaintiff was not a prevailing party and suit did not cause production; catalyst theory did not apply |
| Whether a declaratory judgment is proper when records already produced | Stop & Shop contended a declaration that production was untimely could aid its land-use appeal and vindicate rights | County argued declaratory relief is inappropriate absent an actual controversy or when relief would not terminate uncertainty | Court held DJA relief unavailable because issue was moot and would not affect the existing controversy |
| Whether litigation should proceed despite potential public‑importance/recurrence exceptions to mootness | Stop & Shop contended the issue is important, recurring, and may evade review | County argued none of the exceptions apply; records produced and Board considered them | Court held exceptions not met; no basis to decide moot issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51 (N.J. 2008) (OPRA fee entitlement requires prevailing-party status or catalyst causation)
- Walsh v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 400 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2005) (FOIA claim becomes moot once government produces requested documents)
- Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87 (N.J. 2015) (mootness: decision that would have no practical effect is moot)
- JUA Funding Corp. v. CNA Ins./Cont’l Cas. Co., 322 N.J.Super. 282 (App. Div.) (declaratory relief not available where right to relief is moot)
- Cornucopia Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 560 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009) (court will not issue declaratory judgment that agency violated FOIA after documents produced)