The plaintiff was granted various variances by the Township of West Orange New Jersey (“the Township”) to facilitate the construction of a $4 million restaurant and night club. When the construction was 90% complete, the Township noticed that the construction did not comply with the variances in the approved plan and issued Stop Work Orders. Following a later dispute between the parties, the approval permit and the variances were revoked.
The plaintiffs assert that the Township and the Township Attorney selectively enforced zoning laws, had animus toward the plaintiffs’ Italian Heritage, and that they suspected the money used for the construction was “Mafia Money.” The plaintiffs also contend that the Township Attorney used his law firm’s letter head to solicit objections from Township residents concerning the liquor license for the site.
The District Court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for legal malpractice or civil conspiracy, and that the plaintiffs abandoned their Takings Clause and Equal Protection Clause claims by failing to oppose the defendants’ argument for dismissal. The plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs did not show interstate commerce. The plaintiffs dropped their intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as well.
With the action on other claims was pending, the plaintiffs sought approval from the Planning Board for an amended development proposal, which was granted for an enlarged site footprint, Skye Dance Boxes, and a catwalk. The District Court then granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, and the plaintiff appealed.
With respect to the plaintiff’s the civil rights claims concerning nationality bias, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated that violations of substantive due process must derive from egregious official actions, which are actions that shock the conscience. The court concluded that the plaintiffs properly alleged such a violation by the Township Attorney and that therefore the Court below was erroneous in granting summary judgment with regard to the Town Attorney. However, the summary judgment ruling regarding substantive due process was upheld with respect to all other defendants.
Lastly, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the claims of tortious interference, estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and racketeering are “not cognizable,” as the Township was within its right to enforce the municipal laws. The structure that the plaintiffs’ were building did not conform to the variances granted, or zoning ordinances, and as such, the Township was within its power to halt the violations that occurred and attempt to prevent future violations.
Marjac, LLC v. Trenk, 2010 WL 1936267 (3rd Cir. 5/14/2010).
