RE: Kathy McBride, et al. v. Lt. Governor Sheila Y. Oliver ... · Writer’s Direct: dminchello 555 U.S. Highway One South, Suite 440 Iselin, New Jersey 08830 Tel: (732) 709-4182

www.njrcmlaw.com 555 U.S. Highway One South, Suite 440

Iselin, New Jersey 08830 Tel: (732) 709-4182 Fax: (732) 791-1555

Writer’s Direct: [email protected]

Louis N. Rainone

Craig J. Coughlin*

David L. Minchello

Carol A. Berlen

John F. Gillick

Brian P. Trelease*

Walter D. Denson

Anne E. Rowan

Conor J. Hennessey*

Ruben D. Perez*

Brian M. Riehl

Matthew R. Tavares*

* Also admitted in New York

Of Counsel Baye Adofo-Wilson

May 24, 2019

VIA E-COURTS

Clerk Superior Court of New Jersey Essex County Courthouse 50 West Market St. Newark, NJ 07102

RE: Kathy McBride, et al. v. Lt. Governor Sheila Y. Oliver, et al.

Docket No: MER-L-919-19

Our File No.: 42-0019

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please be advised that this law firm represents Mayor Reed Gusciora, in the above-captioned matter. Please find enclosed for electronic filing the following documents:

1) Notice of Cross-Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer; 2) Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and in support of Cross-

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause 3) Certification of David L. Minchello, Esq. with Exhibit A-I; 4) Proposed form of Order; and 5) Certification of Service.

In addition, I forwarded a courtesy copy of the above documents to the Honorable Mary C.

Jacobson, J.S.C. for her convenience. Please charge our Superior Court account #145848 for any associated filing fees. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

MER-L-000919-19 05/24/2019 1:02:09 PM Pg 1 of 161 Trans ID: LCV2019920775

RAINONE COUGHLIN MINCHELLO May 24, 2019

Page 2

Thank you. Respectfully submitted,

RAINONE COUGHLIN MINCHELLO, LLC

By: DLM/ua David L. Minchello, Esq. cc: Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, J.S.C. – (Via E-Courts and Lawyers Service)

Albert K. Marmero, Esq. – (Via Email and E-Courts) Edward J. Florio, Esq. – (Via E-mail and E-Courts)

Nicole Adams, DAG – (Via Email and E-Courts)


1

David L. Minchello, Esq. - (Attorney ID#: 041412003)


555 U.S. Highway One South, Suite 440 Iselin, New Jersey 08830 Phone: 732-709-4182 Attorney for Mayor Reed Gusciora

KATHY McBRIDE, President, Trenton City Council; MARGE CALDWELL-WILSON, Vice President, Trenton City Council; and ROBIN M. VAUGHN, Member, Trenton City Council; Plaintiff, v. LT. GOVERNOR SHEILA Y. OLIVER, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services; Melanie R. Walter, Director, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services and REED GUSCIORA, Mayor, City of Trenton; Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MERCER COUNTY DOCKET NO.: MER-L-919-19

CIVIL ACTION

NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION

TO DISMISS

TO: Albert K. Marmero, Esq. Grace, Marmero & Associates, LLP 44 Euclid Street Woodbury, NJ 08096

Attorney for Plaintiffs

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon

thereafter as counsel may be heard, counsel for Mayor Reed Gusciora (“Mayor Gusciora”), will

apply to the Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause

with prejudice as to Mayor Reed Gusciora.


2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of said motion, the undersigned

counsel shall rely upon the Brief, Certification and Exhibits annexed hereto.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is annexed hereto.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant Rule 1:6-2(d), oral argument is hereby

requested if this motion is contested.


Attorneys for Mayor Reed Gusciora

By: Dated: May 24, 2019 David L. Minchello, Esq.



SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY MERCER COUNTY: LAW DIVISION DOCKET NO.: MER-L-919-19

CIVIL ACTION

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND IN

SUPPORT OF MAYOR GUSCIORA’S CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS


555 U.S. Highway 1 South, Suite 440 Iselin, NJ 08830 Phone: (732) 709-4182 Fax: (732) 791-1555 Attorneys for Mayor Reed Gusciora

Of Counsel and on the Brief:

David L. Minchello, Esq. – (#041412003) On the Brief: Conor J. Hennessey, Esq. – (#202292017)


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 LEGAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................4

POINT I ........................................................................................................................................4

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DOES NOT INCLUDE A BRIEF AND IS THUS DEFICIENT ...................................................................................4

POINT II ......................................................................................................................................5

PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO EXHAUST THE AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ...........................................................................................5

POINT III .....................................................................................................................................6

THIS ACTION INVOLVES A REVIEW OF A STATE AGENCY DECISION AND THEREFORE THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICION .................................................6

POINT IV .....................................................................................................................................7

PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SATISFY THE STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO CROWE v. DE GIOIA ..................................................................7

POINT V ....................................................................................................................................12

PLAINTIFF’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-2 FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED ................................................................................12

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)

Amato v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Essex, 240 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 1990) .....................................................................................10

Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass’n, 79 N.J. 311 (1979) .....................................................................................................................5

Crowe v. De Gioia. 90 N.J. 126 (1982) .................................................................................................3, 7, 8, 11, 12

Cuprowski v. City of Jersey City, 101 N.J. Super. 15, aff’d, 103 N.J. Super. 217 (App. Div. 1968) ............................................10

Dolan v. DeCapua, 16 N.J. 599 (1954) .....................................................................................................................7

Garden State Equity v. Dow, 433 N.J. Super. 347 (Law. Div. 2013) .......................................................................................8

Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 N.J. ....................................................................................................................................12

Jamouneau v. Board of Comm’rs of Newark, 132 N.J.L. 117 (Sup.Ct.1944) ................................................................................................5, 6

Light v. National Dyeing & Printing Co., 140 N.J.Eq. 506 (Ch.1947) ........................................................................................................4

Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 9 N.J. 477 (1952) ...................................................................................................................5, 6

In re Ordinance 04-75, 192 N.J. 446 (2007) .................................................................................................................10

Paterson Redevelopment Agency v. Schulman, 78 N.J. 378 (1979) .....................................................................................................................5

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) .................................................................................................................12

Rieder v. Department of Transp., 221 N.J. Super. 547 (App. Div. 1987) .....................................................................................12

Sherman v. Sherman, 330 N.J. Super. 638 (Ch. Div. 1999) .........................................................................................4


iii

Subcarrier Communications, Inc. v. Day, 299 N.J.Super. 634 (App.Div.1997) ..........................................................................................7

Ward v. Keenan, 3 N.J. 298 (1949) .......................................................................................................................5

Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Sparta v. Service Elec. Cable Television of New Jersey, Inc., 198 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 1985) .....................................................................................11

Statutes

N.J.S.A. 40:69A-31 et seq. ..............................................................................................................9

N.J.S.A. 40:69A-45 ..........................................................................................................................9

N.J.S.A. 40:69A-46 ..........................................................................................................................9

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-1 et seq. ..............................................................................................................5, 9

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-4 ..............................................................................................................................9

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-10 ..................................................................................................................5, 9, 13

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17 ..........................................................................................................................10

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17(b) ...........................................................................................................9, 10, 13

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-49 ............................................................................................................................9

N.J.S.A. 52:27BB-15 .......................................................................................................................5

N.J.S.A. 52:27BB-20 ...................................................................................................................5, 6


1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

This matter arises from a Verified Complaint filed by Trenton Councilmembers Kathy

McBride, Marge Caldwell-Wilson, and Robin Vaughn (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”)

seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against Mayor Reed Gusciora (hereinafter “Mayor

Gusciora”), Lt. Governor Sheila Y. Oliver, and Melanie R. Walter (hereinafter collectively “Co-

Defendants”). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court: (1) restraining all defendants

from unilaterally transmitting to the County Board and imposing a USD 0.114 cent increase in

taxes upon the City of Trenton’s citizenry; (2) restraining all defendants from “shutting down City

Government”; (3) providing for filing fees and attorney fees incurred; (4) providing for costs of

suit incurred; (5) and any other relief this Court deems proper. See Certification of David L.

Minchello, Esq. (“Minchello Cert.”), Exhibit A.

Although Plaintiffs did not submit a brief in support of their request for injunctive relief,

which is required by court rule, it can be gleaned from their Verified Complaint that they are

essentially challenging the authority of the Director of the Division of Local Government Services

to: (1) approve, deny, and/or require amendments to the City’s Budget pursuant to the receipt of

Transitional Aid and the Local Budget Law, and (2) set the City’s tax levy after City Council fails

to timely adopt a budget.

Since 2010, the City of Trenton has received Transitional Aid from the State of New Jersey,

which is conditioned on the City entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with

the Division of Local Government Services. Pursuant to the MOU, the City of Trenton agrees to

comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and Local Finance notices, observe and comply with

the requirements set forth in the MOU and implement any and all government, administrative, and


2

operational efficiency and oversight measures necessary for the fiscal recovery of the Municipality

as the Director may order. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit B.

On October 18, 2018, the Trenton City Council, including Plaintiffs, accepted for further

consideration and deliberation, by majority vote, the 2019 Fiscal Year Budget presented by Mayor

Gusciora. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit C. The budget presented by Mayor Gusciora on October

18, 2018, included a tax increase of USD 0.114 and a total levy for the Local Tax for Municipal

Purposes at $80,845,541.17. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit D.

On March 5, 2019, Defendant Walter, the Director of the Division of Local Government

Services sent correspondence to Mayor Gusciora advising that the City of Trenton was eligible for

an award of $6 million in Transitional Aid and a loan of $10 million for the Fiscal Year 2019. See

Minchello Cert., Exhibit E.

On March 28, 2019, City Council approved modifications to the Fiscal Year 2019 budget,

which included a reduction to a USD .005 cent increase in taxes and total levy for the Local Tax

for Municipal Purposes of $79, 556,788.41. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit F. This amended budget

was provided to Defendant Walter for approval.

On April 8, 2019, Defendant Walter sent correspondence to Mayor Gusciora and Plaintiff

McBride advising that under the terms of the MOU the City of Trenton is obligated to “comply

with the conditions set forth [therein] in addition to all laws, regulations, Local Finance Notices,

and any government, administrative and oversight measure necessary for the fiscal recovery of the

Municipality as the Director may order from time to time pursuant to the State Budget or any other

law.” Further, Defendant Walter explained that the reduction in the municipal tax levy would result

in increased operational deficits, therefore, she instructed that the City of Trenton make appropriate


3

budget amendments to stabilize the City’s finances by April 11, 2019. See Minchello Cert.,

Exhibit G.

In response to the April 8, 2019 letter, Plaintiff McBride sent Defendant Walter

correspondence dated April 10, 2019, advising that Trenton City Council would take her

recommendations under advisement. However, that meeting the “arbitrary” April 11, 2019 budget

deadline was not realistic. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit I.

Thereafter, on April 24, 2019, Defendant Walter, sent Mayor Gusciora and Trenton City

Council, including Plaintiffs, correspondence advising that the City of Trenton was directed to

adopt its Fiscal Year 2019 budget by April 11, 2019. However, the City had still not adopted the

Fiscal Year 2019 budget and therefore the Director was setting the municipal purposes tax levy at

$80,845,541.17. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit H.

On April 30, 2019, Trenton City Council authorized emergency appropriations, by way of

resolution, in order to keep City offices open and essential services from ceasing. See Minchello

Cert., Exhibit J. On that same date, in lieu of appealing Defendant Walter’s decision to set the

Fiscal Year 2019 municipal purposes tax levy to the Local Finance Board, as provided for by

statute, Plaintiffs filed the within matter. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit A.

As will set forth below, this matter should be dismissed as to Mayor Gusciora whereas: (1)

Plaintiffs’ filing is deficient; (2) Plaintiffs failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies;

(3) This Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter; (4) Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the Crowe factors;

(5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.


4

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DOES

NOT INCLUDE A BRIEF AND IS THUS DEFICIENT.

An application for temporary restraints must be supported by a Verified Complaint and

include a brief. See R. 4:52–1(a) and (c). Failure to comply with these standards can result in

dismissal of the action without consideration of the merits of the complaint. See Sherman v.

Sherman, 330 N.J. Super. 638, 643 (Ch. Div. 1999). This is due to the fact that, “[t]he power to

issue injunctions is the strongest weapon at the command of a court of equity, and its use, therefore,

requires the exercise of great caution, deliberation and sound discretion.” Light v. National Dyeing

& Printing Co., 140 N.J.Eq. 506, 510 (Ch.1947). An injunction is a drastic remedy because it

instantly reaches into a dispute and compels a party, under pain of contempt or other coercive

powers of the court, to do or not do a particular act. Sherman, supra, 330 N.J. Super. at 643. Broadly

speaking, it is a command which prohibits the exercise of free choice or action. Moreover, an

injunction often alters the outcome of a lawsuit in a way unlikely or impossible to later undo. Ibid.

Here, Plaintiffs did not provide a brief in support of their request for temporary and

permanent restraints in violation of court rule. Further, Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint is devoid of

any arguments in support of their entitlement to the requested restraints, with the exception of a

vague and disjointed argument as to irreparable harm. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to put

Mayor Gusciora and Co-Defendants on proper notice of the arguments in support of their alleged

entitlement to the requested restraints. On these grounds, it is respectfully requested that this Court

dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint in its entirety.


5

POINT II

PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO EXHAUST THE

AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

Under the Local Budget law, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-1 et seq., a municipality in the State of New

Jersey may not adopt a budget without approval from the Director of Local Finance. N.J.S.A.

40A:4-10. If the Director fails to approve a municipality’s budget, local officials may seek to

overturn the determination by appeal to the Local Finance Board. N.J.S.A. 52:27BB-15. Judicial

review of the Local Finance Board’s decision is available by appeal as of right to the Appellate

Division. See N.J.S.A. 52:27BB-20; R. 2:2-3(a)(2); See Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 9 N.J. 477, 486-487,

(1952); Jamouneau v. Board of Comm'rs of Newark, 132 N.J.L. 117, 118-120 (Sup.Ct.1944).

The courts of this state have consistently recognized that a litigant must exhaust its

available administrative remedies prior to seeking redress in court. Ward v. Keenan, 3 N.J. 298

(1949); Jamouneau v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Newark, 132 N.J.L. 117, 118–20, (Sup. Ct. 1944).

The exhaustion of remedies requirement is a rule of practice designed to allow administrative

bodies to perform their statutory functions in an orderly manner without preliminary interference

from the courts. Ward, supra, 3 N.J. at 302.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies serves three primary goals: (1) the

rule ensures that claims will be heard, as a preliminary matter, by a body possessing expertise in

the area; (2) administrative exhaustion allows the parties to create a factual record necessary for

meaningful appellate review; and (3) the agency decision may satisfy the parties and thus obviate

resort to the courts. See, e. g., Bernards Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Bernards Tp. Ed. Ass'n, 79 N.J. 311, 317

(1979); Paterson Redevelopment Agency v. Schulman, 78 N.J. 378, 386-388 (1979).

Here, Plaintiffs were informed by way of the April 24, 2019, correspondence from

Defendant Walter that they could appeal her decision to set the Fiscal Year 2019 municipal


https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1979100866&pubNum=583&originatingDoc=I7f464fd1345111d9abe5ec754599669c&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_583_317&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e14f221b907a410a8e4b74d9a4b1e32d*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_583_317



6

purposes tax levy. However, in lieu of appealing the decision to the Local Finance Board, whom

are not a party to this litigation, Plaintiffs filed the within action in Law Division.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies and

therefore this matter should be dismissed.

POINT III

THIS ACTION INVOLVES A REVIEW OF A STATE

AGENCY DECISION AND THEREFORE THIS COURT

LACKS JURISDICTION.

Assuming arguendo it is determined that the Plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative

remedies does not warrant dismissal of this matter, which Mayor Gusciora maintains it should,

this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. As indicated above, Judicial review of a Local

Finance Board’s decision is available by appeal as of right to the Appellate Division. See N.J.S.A.

52:27BB-20; R. 2:2-3(a)(2); See Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 9 N.J. 477, 486-487, 89 A.2d 13 (1952);

Jamouneau v. Board of Comm'rs of Newark, 132 N.J.L. 117, 118-120, 39 A.2d 420 (Sup.Ct.1944).

Further, pursuant to R. 2:2-3:

appeals may be taken to the Appellate Division as a right to review final decision or actions of any state administrative agency or officer, and to review the validity of any rule promulgated by such agency or officer excepting matter prescribed R. 8:2 (tax matters) and matter governed by R. 4:74-8 (Wage Collection Section appeals), except that review pursuant to this subparagraph shall not be maintainable as there is a available a right of review before any administrative agency or officer, unless the interest of justice requires otherwise.

Here, although Plaintiffs did not appeal Defendant Walter’s determination to the Local

Finance Board, they are nonetheless challenging actions taken by a state administrative agency.

Accordingly, under R. 2:2-23 this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and therefore, this


7

matter should be dismissed or in the alternative transferred to the Appellate Division for further

proceedings.

POINT IV

PLAINTIFFS CANNOT SATISFY THE STANDARD FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO CROWE v. DE

GIOIA.

Assuming arguendo, that this Court does not dismiss this matter for any of the reasons

articulated above, nevertheless, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the standard for granting injunctive relief

set forth by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Crowe v. De Gioia. 90 N.J. 126 (1982). The factors

for the court to consider are: (1) whether the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if

injunctive relief is not granted; (2) whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate a reasonable probability

of success on the merits; and (3) when balancing equities, whether the relative hardship to the

parties favors granting or denying the requested relief. Id. 90 N.J. at 132-134. The movant carries

the burden to prove its entitlement to injunctive relief by clear and convincing evidence. Dolan v.

DeCapua, 16 N.J. 599, 612–13 (1954). As will be set forth below, Plaintiff cannot establish any of

the factors required for injunctive relief under Crowe.

A. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted.

Equitable relief by a preliminary injunction should not be entered except when necessary

to prevent substantial, immediate, and irreparable harm. Subcarrier Communications, Inc. v. Day,

299 N.J.Super. 634, 638 (App.Div.1997). In this matter, Plaintiffs contend that if Mayor Gusciora

and Co-Defendants are not enjoined and restrained by order of this Court there will be great and

irreparable injury to the fiscal health of the City of Trenton and the well-being of the citizenry –

the taxpayers, residences, businesses and employees in that Defendants will be able to manipulate

and violate the New Jersey State Constitution, the Faulkner Act, State laws and Ordinances


8

including but not limited to N.J.S.A. 40A:4-16, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17b, N.J.S.A. 52:27BB-15,

N.J.S.A. 27BB-18 and N.J.S.A. 40:69A-179. See Minchello Cert, Exhibit A at 4-5.

However, Plaintiffs do not specify how the fiscal health of the City and the well-being of

the citizenry will be harmed and simply cannot demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of a real

and immediate danger if the requested injunctive relief is not granted. If this Court denies

Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief Defendant Walter will certify to the County Tax Board the

tax levy set forth in her April 24, 2019 correspondence and recommended in Mayor Gusciora’s

proposed budget on October 18, 2019. As such, Government offices and services would not shut

down and the citizens of Trenton would continue to receive the integral services provided by the

City.

It was worth noting, that there has been discussion about fines issued to the members of

Trenton City Council in the amount of $25 per day for each day after June 8, 2019, that the Fiscal

Year 2019 budget remains unadopted. However, the possibility of monetary penalties cannot

satisfy the irreparable harm requirement whereas harm may be considered irreparable if it cannot

be remedied by monetary damages. Crowe, supra, 90 N.J. at 133. Any fines issued to Plaintiffs

and the other members of City Council could clearly be remedied by monetary damages.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate irreparable harm if their requested relief is not

granted.

B. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the

merits.

Plaintiffs must next demonstrate that they have a reasonable probability of success on the

merits. See Crowe, 90 N.J. at 133-134. This factor includes the plaintiff needing to establish that

the legal right underlying plaintiff’s claim is settled. See Garden State Equity v. Dow, 433 N.J.

Super. 347 (Law. Div. 2013).


9

As stated above, under the Local Budget law, N.J.S.A. 40A:4-1 et seq., a municipality in

the State of New Jersey may not adopt a budget without approval from the Director of Local

Finance. N.J.S.A. 40A:4-49. The procedures for introduction and adoption of a municipal budget

are set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:4-4, which requires that all budgets be introduced, approved, amended

and adopted by resolution passed by not less than a majority of the full membership of the

governing body, in the following order: (a) introduction and approval; (b) public advertising; (c)

public hearing; (d) amendments and public hearing, if required; (e) adoption.

The City of Trenton is a Mayor-Council form of government incorporated pursuant to the

Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-31 et seq. Under this form of government, the Mayor is tasked

with, amongst other things, preparing the municipal budget. See N.J.S.A. 40:69A-45. After the

Mayor submits his suggested budget to City Council the remaining responsibilities, including

amending and adopting the budget, fall solely on City Council. See N.J.S.A. 40:69A-46; N.J.S.A.

40A:4-10.

In this matter, it is uncontested that Mayor Gusciora fulfilled his obligations, under the

Local Budget Law and the Faulkner Act, by preparing and submitting the Fiscal Year 2019 budget

to Trenton City Council on October 18, 2018. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit C. Thereafter, City

Council, including Plaintiffs, amended the proposed budget to reduce the tax rate. The amended

budget was submitted to the Defendant Walter for approval as required by N.J.S.A. 40A:4-49 and

the terms of the Transitional Aid MOU.

The amended budget was denied by Defendant Walter, who ordered that the City of

Trenton pass a budget which would not result in expanding deficits by April 11, 2019. After City

Council failed to approve a budget by April 11, 2019, Defendant Walter set the municipal purpose

tax levy for the Fiscal Year 2019 pursuant to the authority provided by N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17(b).


10

N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17(b) provides that the Director of the Division of Local Government

Services after receiving notice that the county board has not received a copy of the budget

resolution or other evidence showing the amount to be raised by taxes for the purposes of a local

unit, or other failure of a governing body to act in accordance with law can establish the amount

to be raised by taxation and certify the same to the county tax board. Thereafter, the local unit has

45 days to adopt its budget pursuant to law. If the governing body fails to act accordingly, the

Director can transmit to the county board a certificate setting forth the amount required for the

operation of the local unit for the fiscal year. See N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17.

In the limited case law on the subject of N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17(b), the courts of this state have

consistently recognized the authority of the Director to set a municipality’s budget. See Cuprowski

v. City of Jersey City, 101 N.J. Super. 15, 28 (Law. Div.), aff'd, 103 N.J. Super. 217 (App. Div.

1968), and abrogated in respect to other issues by In re Ordinance 04-75, 192 N.J. 446 (2007)

(noting that preparation, approval and adoption of a municipal budget is administrative in

character, however, under certain circumstances the city could operate under the budget of the

preceding year with suitable adjustments); Amato v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of

Essex, 240 N.J. Super. 313, 324 n.2 (App. Div. 1990) (“In the event of an impasse, the budget

process could proceed as provided in N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17. However, that question need not be fully

considered in light of our holding.”).

For all of the foregoing, Plaintiffs cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits

whereas Mayor Gusciora, and all Co-Defendants for that matter, acted in accordance to the

authority provided by statute and as allowed by law. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to cite any

statutory provisions or relevant case law which demonstrates their likelihood of success on the

ultimate merits of this matter.


11

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for temporary

and permeant restraints and dismiss this matter in its entirety with prejudice as to Mayor Gusciora.

C. When balancing the equities, the relative hardship of the parties favors denying the

Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

“The final test in considering the granting of a preliminary injunction is the relative

hardship to the parties in granting or denying the relief.” Crowe, supra, 90 N.J. at 134. The court

must balance the equities involved to determine whether the possible harm to the defendant

resulting from the issuance of an injunction is outweighed by the harm threatening the plaintiff

should the injunction not issue. See Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Sparta v. Service Elec. Cable

Television of New Jersey, Inc., 198 N.J. Super. 370, 379 (App. Div. 1985). In the present matter,

the harm created by granting Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief far outweighs the harm in denying

Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief.

As stated above, if this Court denies Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief the Director of

Local Government Services would certify to the County Tax Board, the municipal purposes tax

levy set forth in the April 24, 2019 correspondence and proposed by Mayor Gusciora on October

18, 2018. Therefore, the City’s essential services would continue to operate to the benefit of its

citizens.

However, if this Court were to grant Plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief the City of

Trenton would continue without an approved budget for the Fiscal Year 2019. Accordingly, if

emergency appropriations were not passed before the pendency of this matter, the City of Trenton

would run out of funding and face complete shutdown. Moreover, pursuant to the requirements

of the MOU and the Local Budget Law the Director of Local Government Services would still

have to certify the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. Therefore, in balancing the equities it is clear that the

City of Trenton would suffer greater harm if Plaintiffs’ requested relief was granted.


12

Based on the foregoing, Mayor Gusciora submits that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of the

factors required by Crowe for the granting of injunctive relief. As such, it is respectfully requested

that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified

Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

POINT V

PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT SHOULD BE

DISMISSED PURSUANT TO R. 4:6-2 FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE

GRANTED.

The standard governing a motion to dismiss pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e) is to examine the legal

sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint. Rieder v. Department of Transp., 221

N.J. Super. 547, 552 (App. Div. 1987). “The court may not consider anything other than whether

the complaint states a cognizable cause of action. Id.

In reviewing the complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to a liberal interpretation of contents of

the complaint, and the cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim,

opportunity being given to amend if necessary.” Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics

Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989).

On the other hand, “[a] complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails ‘to

articulate a legal basis entitling plaintiff to relief.’” Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 N.J.

Super. 105, 112 (App. Div. 2009). “A dismissal is mandated where the factual allegations are

palpably insufficient to support a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Rieder, 221 N.J. Super.

at 552. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint should be

dismissed.

In this matter, it is uncontested that Mayor Gusciora prepared and submitted to Trenton

City Council the Fiscal Year 2019 budget on October 18, 2018. See Minchello Cert., Exhibit C.


13

Thereafter, City Council, including Plaintiffs, amended the budget to include a reduced tax rate.

The amended budget was submitted to the Defendant Walter for approval as required by N.J.S.A.

40A:4-10 and the terms of the Transitional Aid MOU. The amended budget was denied by

Defendant Walter, who ordered that the City of Trenton pass a budget which would not result in

expanding deficits by April 11, 2019. After City Council failed to approve a budget by April 11,

2019, Defendant Walter set the municipal purpose tax levy for the Fiscal Year 2019 pursuant to

the authority provided by N.J.S.A. 40A:4-17(b).

For all of the foregoing, Mayor Gusciora has clearly completed all of his obligations, under

the Local Budget Law and the Faulkner Act, in respect to the Fiscal Year 2019 budget. Moreover,

Mayor Gusciora does not have the authority to unilaterally transmit the budget to the County Board

or “shutdown” City Government and therefore a court order restraining him from doing so is

unnecessary and unwarranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ have not articulated a legal basis entitling them to relief and have

failed state a claim as to Mayor Gusciora. As such, it is respectfully submitted that this Court grant

Defendants Cross Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer.


14

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Mayor Gusciora respectfully submits that his Cross-Motion

to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause should be granted and

Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause should be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,


By: Dated: May 24, 2019 David L. Minchello, Esq. cc: Albert K. Marmero, Esq. – (Via Email and E-Courts)

Edward J. Florio, Esq. – (Via E-mail and E-Courts) Nicole Adams, DAG – (Via Email and E-Courts)


1






CIVIL ACTION

CERTIFICATION OF

DAVID L. MINCHELLO, ESQ.

I, DAVID L. MINCHELLO, ESQ., of full age, hereby certifies as follows:

1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and a partner with the law firm

of Rainone Coughlin Minchello, LLC. I submit this Certification in support of Mayor Reed

Gusciora’s (“Mayor Gusciora”), brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint in support of

Mayor Guscioria’s Cross-motion to Dismiss.

2. Annexed hereto is a true and correct copy of the following documents:

Exhibit A: Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause dated

April 29, 2019.


2

Exhibit B: Resolution 18-457 adopted June 21, 2018.

Exhibit C: Resolution 18-670 adopted October 18, 2018.

Exhibit D: Mayor’s proposed Budget for 2019.

Exhibit E: Letter from Melanie Walter to Mayor Gusciora dated March 5,

2019.

Exhibit F: Resolution 19-152 adopted March 28, 2019.

Exhibit G: Letter from Melanie Walter to Mayor Gusciora and

Councilwoman McBride dated April 8, 2019.

Exhibit H: Letter from Melanie Walter to Mayor Gusciora and City

Council Members dated April 24, 2019.

Exhibit I: Letter from Kathy McBride to Director Walter dated April 10,

2019.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any

of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.


Attorneys for Mayor Reed Gusciora

By: Dated: May 24, 2019 David L. Minchello, Esq.


EXHIBIT A


MER-L-000919-19 04/29/2019 Pg 1 of 7 Trans ID: LCV2019813818 MER-L-000919-19 05/24/2019 1:02:09 PM Pg 26 of 161 Trans ID: LCV2019920775



















EXHIBIT B


























EXHIBIT C


RESOLUTION No.

18-670

Date of Adoption QCT_ } 8

Approved as to Form and Lega ity Factual content certified by

John A1orelli .mess Àdministrator

Councilman /u man presents the following Resolution:

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE INTRODUCED BUDGET FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2019

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE, by the City Council of the City of Trenton,

County of Mercer, that the budget set forth is hereby approved by majority of the full

authorized membership of this governing body for the Introduced 2019 Fiscal Year

Budget.

Aye Nay Absimn Absent Aye Nay Abstain Absent Aye Nay Abstain Absent

BLAKELEY MUSCllAI. MCBRIDE

eALDWEll. RODRRH'EZ

wn.soN

ilARRlSOS. VAUGllN

Thi Resolu on was adopted at a hiceting of the City Council of the City of Trenton on •

DCT 1 8 2018


EXHIBIT D





































































EXHIBIT E




EXHIBIT F


RESOLUTION s 19-152

Date ot'Adoption MAR 2 8 2019 Approved as to Form and I e ality Factual content certifie y -

Jo n Morelli. Esq., City Attorney Adam E. Cruz, Birsiness Admiiústrat

Councilman oman __ _presents the following Res91ution:

RF OLUTION TO APPROVE THE FY 2019 MUNICIPAL UTILITY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF TRENTON

WHER E AS, the City of Trenton introduced the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2019 that was approved on the 18* day of October 2018; and

WHEREAS, the Public Hearing on said budget was held on the 4* day of December 2018; and

WHEREAS, it is desired to amend said approved introduced budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Trenton, County of Mercer, State of New Jersey, that the following amendments to the introduced approved budget of Fiscal Year 2019 be made.

FROM T_O

CURRENT FUND-GENERA L RE\ ENUES

1. Surplus Anticipated 7,394.000.00 7,394,000.00

2. Surplus Antipated with Prior Written Consent of 9,000,000.00 5,700,000.00

the Division of Local Government Services

TOTA L SURPLUS ANTICIPATED 16,394,000.00 13,094,000.00

3. Miscellaneous Revenues - Section A-: Local Revenues 758,599.88 596.332.78

Miscellaneous Revenue-Local Revenues

TOTA L LOCA L REVENUES 13,912,972.96 13,750,705.86

3. Miscellaneous Revenues - Section B-: State Aid Without

Offsetting Appropriations

Transitional Aid 9,000,000.00 6,000,000.00

Interest Free State Loan Aid 10,000,000.00

TOTA L SECTION B: State Aid without Offsetting A ppropriations 67,964,560.00 74,964,560.00

3. Miscellaneous Revenues - Section E: Special Items of General

Revenues Anticipated with Prior Written Consent of the Division

of Local Government Services

Fees and Permits-Health 86,927,00

Fees and Permits-Alcoholic Beverage License 75.340.10

3. TOTAL SECTION E: Special Items of General Revenues Anticipated with 162,267.10

with Prior Written Consent of the Director of the Division of I ocal

Government Services


RESOLUTION

3. Misscellaneous Revenues - Section F: Special items of General Revenues

Anticipated with Prior Written Consent of the Director of the Division of

Local Government Services - Public and Private Revenues Offset with Appropriations

LSDOJ-FV 2019 BI'LLERPROOF VESI PARTNERSillP 35.622.13

FY 2019-SAFE STREETS TASK FORCE (FBI) 36,687.50

FY 2019 I SDOJ-l:S MA RSH A L LS SE R V ICE d i EO-19-0106 15,000.00

FISCAL YEAR 2019 ANTI-VIOLENCE Ol T OF SCilOOL 1,000,000.00

FY 2018 ED BVRNE MEMORIAL dl STICE ASSISTANCE GRANT 100.913.00

FY 2017 ED BVRNE MEMORIAl. Jl STICE ASSISTANCE GRANT 97.300.00

FY 2019 STATE AND I OCAI TASK FORCE-DEA POPE 301.75

FY 2019 STATE AND LOCAl TASK FORCE-DEA WARD 301.75

SNJ l RBAN BLIGitT REDl'CTION PROGRAM (t BRP) #2 550,000.00

DVRPC # 19-53-314 DELAWARE VAll.EV REGIONAL Pl.ANNING COMM 15,000.00

NJEDA INNOVATION CHAI I ENGE GRAN I 100,000.00

MERCER AT PLAY 500,000.00

NJDEP GREEN ACRES PROGRAM-IIERTZEl FIELD PARK 500,000.00

3. I OTA L Section F: Special items of General Revenues Anticipated with 1,708,949.91 4,660,076.04

Prior Written Consent of the Director of the Division of Local Government

Services - Public and Private Revenues Offset with Appropriations

3. Miscellaneous Revenues - Section G: Special Items of General Revenues

Anticipated with Prior Written Consent of the Director of the Division of

Local Government Services - Other Special items:

TRENTON HOI SING A1:THORITV PILOT 396,217.09

Qualified Bond Debt Service Payment-Water 3,848,105.00 3,766.513.50

Qualified Bond Debt Service Payment-Sewer 596,773.00 601,943.78

Qualified Bond Debt Service Payment-Parking 7,161.00 7.275.00

Sales of City Owned Properties 500,000.00 375.000.00

TOTA L Section G: Special items of General Revenue Anticipated with 21.494,299.53 21,689.209.90

Prior Written Consent of the Director of the Division of Local

Services - Othe rSpeical items

5. Subrotal General Revenues (Items 1, 2, 3, and 4) 105,948.943.40 116,094,979.90

6. Amount to be Raised by Taxes for Support of Municipal Budget

a) Local Tax for Municipal Purposes Including Reserve for l neollected Taxes 80,845,541.17 79,556,788.41

b) Addition to Local District School Tax 906,368.80 906,368.80

c) Minimum Library Tax Rate 804,800.68 804,800.68

Total Taxes 82,556,710.65 81,267,957.89

7. Total General Revenues 208,471,654.05 214,028,937.79


RESOLUTION

CURRENT FUND - APPROPRIATIONS

(A)Operations within "CAPS"

Mayor -SW 612,737.56 559,826.56

May or -OE 52.555.00 32,555.00

City Council-SW 141,499.00 160.249.00

City Council-OE 56,586.25 79,186.25

City Clerk-SW 276,993.59 I 75,866.59

City Clerk-OE I 10,665.45 76,665.45

Elections-OE 167,588.30 92,088.30

Administration-SW 750,013.05 628,013.00

Administration-Insurance-SW 104,342.70 110,342.70

Administration-MIS-OE 1,178,597.10 1,248,597.00

Finance Director-SW 139,715.87 89,715.87

Accounts and Control-SW 519,495.82 439,495.82

Revaluation-SW 85,634.00 634.00

Assessor-SW 466,505.90 436,505.90

Treasury-SW 143,836.71 173,836.71

Law.SW 894,634.97 774,634.97

1.aw-OE I,643,912.00 1,793,912.00

llealth Director-SW 236,896.09 306,896.09

Health Promotion-SW 291,944.46 310,017.46

Environmental Health-SW 440,245,70 510,245.70

Vital Statistics-S¼ 212,397.32 197,397.32

Animal Control-S¼ 350,187.83 280,187.83

Office of Adult and Family-SW 186,462.00 46,462.00

Comm Relations and Soc Services-SW 196,168.37 266, l68.37

Coordinated Entry and Assessment (SAC) -SW 512,823.17 422,823.17

Fire-SW 25.191,009.95 26,441,009.95

Fire-OE 846,650.00 771,650.00

Public Works - Director-SW 122,613.83 134,702.83

Public Works - Solid Waste-SW 3,566,218.10 3.406,218.10

Public Works-Streets-SW I,437,336.50 1,337,336.50

Public Works - Public Property-SW 2,763,958.67 2,363,958.67

Public Works-Landfill-OE 5,500,000.00 5,700,000.00

flousing and Economic Director-SW 196,973.28 209,062.28

I ns pections Di rector-OE 144,988.50 21.913.50

Technical Services-SW 371,379.47 271,379.47

Recreation-SW 543,859.56 482,593.56

Recreation-OE 237,273.75 196,273.75

Natural Resources-OE 380,117.00 349,072.00

Health Insurance OE 30,955,180.00 31,633,180.00

Workers Compensation-OE 100,000.00 700,000.00


RESOLUTION Occupational Health-OE 160,000.00 277,500.00

General Liability-OE 100,000.00 75,000.00

Public Service Electric and Gas-OE 1,145,000,00 1,250,000.00

Public Service Electric and Gas-Traffic lights-OE 2,134,390.75 1,949,390.75

Heating Fuel-OE 25,000.00 40,000.00

Water Bills-OE 250,000.00 310,000.00

Telephone-OE 450,000.00 425,000.00

Salary and Wage Adjustment Acet 291,000.00

(A) Operations within CAPS 144,681,993.74 146,136,170.50

(2) Statutory Expenditures:

Public Employees' Retirement System - OE 4,837,710.00 4,840,289.12

Social Security System (OASI) 1,600,000.00 1,838,000.00

Police and Fireman's retirement System-OE 14,716,167.00 14,737,748.60

Medicare-Employer Sha re-OE I,000,000.00 1,229,000.00

Total Deferred Charges and Statutory Expenditures - Municipal within "CAPS" 22,503,877.00 22,995,037.72

(H-l) Total General Appropriations for Municipal Purposes within CAPS 167,185,870.74 169,131,208.31

(A) Operations - Excluded from "CAPS"

Shared Service Agreement

Recycling 915,000.00 975,000.00

TOTA L SH ARED SERVICE AGREEMENTS 1,430,609.25 1,490,609.25

Additional Appropriations Offset by Revenues(N.J.S 40A4-45.3h)

Public Health Services-SW 120,000.00 86,927.110

Muncipal Clerk-SW 63,363.10 75,340.10

TOTAL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS OFFSET BV REVENUES (40A:4-45.3h) 183,363.10 162,267.10

1SDOJ-FV 2019 BULLERPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP 35,622.13

FV 2019-SAFE STREETS TASK FORCE (FBI) 36,687.50

FY 2019 I SDOJ-l'S MARSHALLS SERVICE JLEO-19-0106 15,000.00

FISCA L VEAR 2019 ANTI-VIOLENCE Ol T OF SCHOOL I,000,000.00

FY 2018 ED BVRNE MEMORIAl Jl STICE ASSISTANCE GRANT 100,913.00

FY 2017 ED BYRNE MEMORIAL JirSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT 97,300.00

FY 2019 STATE AND LOCAL TASK FORCE-DEA POPE 301.75

FV 2019 STATE AND LOCAL TASK FORCE-DEA WARD 301.75

SNJ l RBAN BLIGHT REDL CTION PROGRAM (L BRP) #2 550,000.00

DVRPC # 19-53-314 DELAWARE VAl.1 EV REGIONAL PLANNING COMM 15,000.00

NJEDA INNOVATION CHAl.l.ENGE GRANT 100,000.00


RESOLUTION

MERCER AT PLAV 500,000.00

NJDEP GREEN ACRES PROGRAM-IIERT7EL FIELD PARK 500,000.00

LOCAL MATCH-TRENT HOl'SE 228.750.00 240,750.00

TOTAL Public and Private Programs Offset by Revenues (INCllDES MATCH) 1,937,700.91 4,900,827.04

Total Operations - Excluded from "CAPS" 5,627,228.26 8,629.258.39

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Capital Improvement Fund 627,000.00

CAPITAL ITEMS

Police Roof 400.000.00 400.000.00

Management Information System 100,000.00 100,000.00

Bulletproof Vest Fire 220,000.00 220,000.00

Floor Fire 75,000.00

Police Body Cameras 25,000.00 25,000.00

Court Office Furniture 36,134.00 36,134.00

TOTAL CAPITAL ITEMS 781,134.00 856,134.00

TOTAl CAPITAl IMPROVEMENTS EXCilDED FROM CAPS 781,134.00 1,483.134.00

(L) Total General Appropriations Items 11-1 and O 199,934,029.95 205,583,397.65

(M) Reserve for Uncollected Tax 8,537,624.10 8,445,540.14

9. Total General Appropriations 208,471,654.05 214,028,937.79

BE IT, FURTHER, RESOLVED, that two certified copies of this Resolution be filed with the Director of the Division of Local Government Services for certification of the municipal Budget so amended. The budget amendment will be published in the Trenton Times and the Trentonian in the issue of April 1, 2019. A hearing on the budget amendment will be held at the municipal building on April 4, 2019 at 5: 30 pm. at which time and place objections to said budget amendment may be presented by taxpayers or other interested persons. It is hereby certified that this is a true copy of a Resolution amending the budget for approval by the governing body on March 28.2019.

Aye Nay Abstam Absent Aye Nay Abstain Absent Aye Nay Abstain Absent BLAKELEY MUSCHAL MCBRIDE CALDWELL RODRIGUEZ WlLSoN

HARRISON VAUGHN

This Resolution was adopted at a Meeting of the City Council of the Citysf-Trentoq on _

Pre dent fCouncil .._ CityClerk


EXHIBIT G




EXHIBIT H




EXHIBIT I




1






CIVIL ACTION

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court on Cross-Motion of Rainone

Coughlin Minchello, LLC, counsel for Mayor Reed Gusciora (“Mayor Gusciora”), for an Order

granting Mayor Gusciora’s Cross-Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to

Show Cause; and the Court having considered all papers submitted, and good cause appearing:

IT IS on this ____________ day of ________________________, 2019,

ORDERED that the Mayor Gusciora’s Cross-Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified

Complaint and Order to Show Cause is hereby GRANTED in full with prejudice; and it is further


2

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint against Mayor Reed Gusciora is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Caused is denied with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served upon all counsel of record upon the

Court’s upload to E-Courts.

J.S.C. ____ Opposed Unopposed


1




KATHY McBRIDE, President, Trenton City Council; MARGE CALDWELL-WILSON, Vice President, Trenton City Council; and ROBIN M. VAUGHN, Member, Trenton City Council;

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. GOVERNOR SHEILA Y. OLIVER, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services; Melanie R. Walter, Director, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Government Services and REED GUSCIORA, Mayor, City of Trenton;

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MERCER COUNTY

DOCKET NO.: MER-L-919-19

CIVIL ACTION

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I, SIKANDRAH WHITE, being of full age and duly sworn upon my oath, deposes and

says:

On May 24, 2019, I caused a copy of the following documents to be delivered via E-courts

to the Clerk of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Courthouse, Law Division, 175

S Broad St, Trenton, NJ 08608:

1) Notice of Cross-Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer;2) Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and in support of Cross-

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause3) Certification of David L. Minchello, Esq. with Exhibit A-I;4) Proposed form of Order; and5) Certification of Service.


2

In addition, I caused a copy of the above documents to be delivered via E-Courts and

Lawyers Service to the following address:

1) Honorable Mary C. Jacobson, J.S.C. Superior Court of New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage – New Criminal Courthouse Law Division 400 S. Warren Street, 4th Floor Trenton, NJ 08650

In addition, I caused a copy of the above documents to be delivered via E-Courts and Email

to the following:

1) Albert K. Marmero, Esq. Grace, Marmero & Associates, LLP 44 Euclid Street Woodbury, NJ 08096

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Edward J. Florio, Esq. Florio Kenny Raval LLP 125 Chubb Ave Suite 310N Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 Attorneys for Defendant, Melanie R. Walter

Nicole Adams, DAG Office of the Attorney General 25 Markert Street PO Box 112 Trenton, NJ 08625 Attorneys for Defendant, Lt. Governor Shelia Oliver

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true, I am aware that if any of the

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

By: Dated: May 24, 2019 Sikandrah White


Documents

RE: Kathy McBride, et al. v. Lt. Governor Sheila Y. Oliver ... · Writer’s Direct: dminchello 555 U.S. Highway One South, Suite 440 Iselin, New Jersey 08830 Tel: (732) 709-4182