Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
STATEMENT
This litigation is a lower court-designated SLAPP-suit filed
1
claims. On December 12, 2014 after summary judgment two
set for trial, a 1:4-8 “safe harbor” letter specifically detailed why
tactics than just walking past him.” Beth Mason’s replied, “I do.”
Pa646 Just over two years later, Plaintiffs’ SLAPP-suit was filed
2
communications massively stolen from the Mayor’s office.
defendants for attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Brice was awarded
fees sought.
3
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
the judge wrote of Plaintiffs, “they did not provide the actual
the corrupt and the Machine for his Beth Mason paycheck” and
Pa31-54 1
1
A similar senior advisor to the spring 2009 Beth Mason campaign, Tom Bertoli offered in his
January 2014 deposition his belief the Plaintiffs were like him paid and held expectation of further
compensation of employment in a Mayor Mason administration. Pa350 11, Pa363 63-64
4
granting dismissal on summary judgement. At issue was Mr.
Brice for sanctions and fees against Plaintiffs for $22,687. Pa81
5
motion as in the case of Defendant Pincus’ earlier was opposed
all Defendants.
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
adding:
7
cabinet campaign strategists/political operatives. (Examples:
50:14, etc.)
telling him, “Beth and I are going to own your condo.” Pa639 At
his July 18, 2014 deposition, Lane Bajardi was asked how many
times he had asked for legal “assistance” of Beth Mason and her
to Beth Mason. The litigation well into its fifth year is part and
8
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Point One
9
Mountain, Inc. 164 N.J. 127, 145 (2000)), and it affords greater
N.J. at 352. See also: Twin Rivers, supra, 192 N.J. at 356.
allegation, the clear intent was to harass and interfere with his
2013 Hoboken voter fraud case, Mr. Brice did state Defendant
Brice and Ms. Pincus containing a story written to his email list
10
titled, “If Truman gave them hell in Hoboken.” The subsequent
Point Two
2
Defendant adopts the entirety of the facts contained in the briefs of Defendant Mark Heyer and
Defendant Nancy Pincus. References are noted herein.
11
McKeown-Brank, 132 N.J. 546 (1993), relied upon by Plaintiff.
Pb23-24.
407 N.J. Super 379 (App. Div), cert. denied, 200 N.J. 367 (2009)
Pb22-23
proofs and witnesses in a two and half year litigation and six-
12
such proof followed the motion to dismiss, the summary
asked, “Has Mr. Mevorach told you that he reads Hoboken Patch,
13
A. DEFENDANT FULLY SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OF
R. 1:4-8 Pa1431
Judge Arre did not err in granting frivolous litigation
3
Defendant safe harbor letter appendix: Ba1-4
14
“Even as the court has dismissed one plaintiff and most of
the remaining allegations of the other, this litigation and
the cost in time and resources has continued. There’s no
basis for it as the political operation has failed and the
claims as filed in July 2012 are frivolous. The obvious fact
your clients have not and cannot show a single, coherent
proof of damages is further evidence this litigation is
improper, was failed in bad faith and is a SLAPP.”
Pa1433
Defendant Brice’s point on Plaintiffs lack of damages accurately
15
Plaintiffs mistakenly claim Defendants did not show all
not the standard. Mr. Brice submitted his safe harbor letter after
excising all tort claims and deeming him a public figure who
counts and explicitly set forth why the purpose of the Plaintiffs’
first page of the letter. 1431a The same letter further pointed
Citing the plaintiffs’ own email, they were quoted having worked
Pa1433a
16
follow-up to his earlier written requests to Beth Mason on
Franklin Sav. Account No. 2067, 389 N.J. Super. 272, 281 (App.
Div. 2006), Ferolito v. Park Hill Ass’n, Inc. 408 N.J. Super. 401,
specificity why the litigation was a SLAPP and met all the stated
4
Further illustration is cited in the Defendant Pincus brief, Dpb14-19.
17
B. PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT WAS BORNE OF BAD FAITH
INTENDING TO CHILL DEFENDANT’S SPEECH LACKING
ANY PROOF AS TO REPUTATIONAL OR PECUNIARY
DAMAGES PA97-116A
Plaintiff’s Complaint was not filed in good faith. The intended
Pa97-116a
The Court upon outlining and seeing the conditions met for
components writing:
18
“The opposing parties essentially argue that an attorney may
include multiple frivolous claims in a complaint, and if one
survives summary judgment based on misrepresentations to
the court as to outstanding discovery, than the attorney and
the clients are shielded from sanctions and attorney’s fees.”
Defendants argue the opposing parties… United Hearts is
distinctly different from this case in numerous critical ways.
Here Plaintiffs filed a 170 paragraph Complaint. The entirety
of Kimberly Cardinal Bajardi’s claims were dismissed at the
summary judgment stage, and all of both Plaintiff’s tort
claims were dismissed. The opposing parties argue that
because two motion Judges denied summary judgment on one
count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and allowed it to proceed to
trial this Court cannot find that any part of the Complaint was
frivolous for purposes of sanctions. The remaining claims in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint were for defamation and defamation per
se. These claims only narrowly survived Judge Vanek’s and
Judge Maron’s summary judgment rulings based on
representations by Plaintiff’s counsel, Gibson and Cohen, that
discovery would lead to evidence demonstrating Mr. Bajardi’s
damages and the Defendant’s actual malice.
trial. The Court properly found the Plaintiffs had the ability to
19
assess alleged damages, ones they would never produce to their
malicious injury.
In this case, the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims were economic and reputational
damage. Plaintiffs’ here did not simply rely on advice of counsel when
bringing their claims. This is not a case where the attorney evaluated a
basis for a claim in the law. Rather, it is a situation where the clients
represented to the attorney that they suffered reputational and pecuniary
damage- something that is particularly within their own purview to
assess. Plaintiffs represented to their counsel that damages existed as a
result of the alleged defamatory conduct. No proof of damages was ever
presented. Allegations regarding intentional infliction of emotional
distress, tortious interference, and defamation from eleven anonymous
screen names went completely unsupported and were dismissed.
Plaintiffs’ tort claims rested on Defendants allegedly “damaging Plaintiffs’
reputations,” no evidence of which was ever presented. Additionally,
Plaintiffs were not forthcoming as to the extent of their political
involvement both on the internet and in person. Gibson’s response to
Plumb’s Rule 1:4-8 letter confirms as much. Plaintiffs remained publicly
and actively involved in Hoboken’s political discourse. For example,
[Lane] Bajardi presented himself at various public gatherings advocating
for the political position of Councilwoman Mason, and remained deeply
involved controversies, specifically the ones that were the subject of
Defendants alleged defamatory statements. Not only were the Bajardis
acting as limited public figures, but the issues upon which they predicated
their claims were matters of public concern. Therefore, the Court finds
the Bajardis’ claims were frivolous, were pursued in bad faith, and with
the purpose of harassment, delay, and malicious injury, in violation of
N.J.S.A. § 2A: 15-59.1.
Pa112-113a
5
See Defendant Pincus Dpb19-25
20
In turn, Plaintiffs were not passive actors led by or reliant
6
See the exchange between Judge Maron and Plaintiffs’ former counsel Whitney Gibson,
Defendant Pincus brief: Dpb31.
21
Lane Bajardi in his employment and as a journalist. No such
United Hearts however, the claims were based on one action, not
a common legal theory and were not derived in each other. This
count.
22
attorney’s review of the documentation and interpretation of the
Div. 2007).
23
D. JUDGE ARRE ACTED PROPERLY UNDER CORRECT
DISCRETION IN ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO PERSONALLY
PAY FOR THIS FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION PA111-116A
Judge Arre did not abuse his discretion in ordering Plaintiffs
acted appropriately. 7
24
case against him and other Defendants collapsed upon itself. The
Lobiondo v. Schwartz, 323 N.J. Super. 391, 424 (App. Div. 1999)
Point Three
Bajardi but not any specific action other than his one comment.
screen names all sharing support for the Hoboken Old Guard
25
faction. Pa53 In paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Defendant
comment about Lane Bajardi and his alleged varied use of screen
9
In his July 2014 deposition, Lane Bajardi admitted to using four screen names seen in his emails
under his own blog posts on Hoboken411 alone. Additional names were further identified but
Defendants never conclusively identified all of them. Pa404
26
are derivatively consistent with one another but are not
from associating with him. Lynch v New Jersey Educ. Ass’n, 161
public concern.
27
revive this litigation under false light as another cause of action
is inoperable. 10
10
See Dpb44 why Plaintiffs’ attempt to restart a new cause of action is inoperable.
11
For the fully outlined legal proposition of Rocci, see Dpb44-48.
28
instance as here involve issues of the public interest, that one
issue of Beth Mason funding the Old Guard factionalism vs. the
earnest over the past decade and especially prevalent since 2009
operatives.
hundreds deep, well over 600 deep in the back and forth
29
As the alleged defamatory statements are directly centered
failed to do.
is a question of law for the Court. Hill v. Evening News, Co. 314
N.J. Super. 545 (App. Div. 1998); Barash v. Soho Weekly News,
declared “soldier” for Beth Mason and her Old Guard allies into
30
scores of issues of public concern within the Hoboken political
see Beth Mason and her Old Guard allies prevail over Mayor
issue with the mayor on various public issues, Lane Bajardi toed
the line for Beth Mason no matter how strained her political
31
and his online commenting and letter endorsements which are
most in Lane Bajardi’s own voice and name (videos and emails)
public figure for all his major contributions to Beth Mason, her
Old Guard allies and his direct role in the public controversy of
Court’s determination.
12
Extensive examples and a further delineated outline of Lane Bajardi’s public figure status is
seen in Dpb49-53.
32
actual malice. Judge Arre benefitted from being witness to
Point Four
was satisfied.
33
Point Five
34
of a public figure. Further complicating the Plaintiffs position,
104 N.J. at 275, 516 A.2d 1083. Further, when Plaintiff belatedly
2014 sur reply but not detailed to the specificity provided in his
deposition the prior month. Mr. Brice in his years long reporting
35
findings to the questions circling Mr. Bajardi’s involvement in
investigation by Mr. Brice to all sources, this too is not the legal
standard. 14
36
on investigative reporting in Hoboken and Hudson County. In so
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,
By:
37