Roxbury Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MATTHEW M. FREDERICKS, ESQ., LLC

111 Northfield Avenue

Suite #304

West Orange, New Jersey 07052

(973) 731-4545

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Strategic

Environmental Partners, LLC, Marilyn Bernardi

and Richar Bernardi

-----------------------------------------------------------------

:

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS, :

LLC, MARILYN BERNARDI AND :

RICHARD BERNARDI, :

:

:

Plaintiffs, :

: Docket No.

vs. :

:

SENATOR ANTHONY BUCCO, :

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF :

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, :

COMMISSIONER ROBERT MARTIN, :

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY NJ, MAYOR OF :

ROXBURY TOWNSHIP FRED HALL, :

DANIEL MARCHESE, IRENE KROPP, :

ATLANTIC RESPONSE, INC. and : COMPLAINT

CHRISTOPHER RATHS, :

:

Defendants. :

----------------------------------------------------------------

Plaintiffs, Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC, Marilyn Bernardi and Richard Bernardi

(hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), by their attorney, Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq., by way of Complaint against

Defendants, say:

2

I. INTRODUCTION

This action arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; under federal law, specifically 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 and 1988; under the New

Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.; the New Jersey Civil Rights Act,

N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq. and under New Jersey common law for conversion, tortious interference

and civil conspiracy.

The individual Defendants, acting in the scope of their employment and under color of

state law and/or while acting as willful participants in joint action with the state or its agents,

with malicious and discriminatory intent, conspired to deprive and did deprive Plaintiffs of their

rights secured to Plaintiffs by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and by 42 U.S.C.

§1983 including: (a) the right not to be deprived of property without due process of law; (b) the

right to just compensation for taking of property; (c) the right to exercise free speech without fear

of governmental retaliation; (d) the right to equal protection of the laws. Action is also brought

against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the Township of Roxbury

for their participation in and promotion and furtherance of the malicious and discriminatory

deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights.

With malice and with the intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights,

Defendants conspired to interfere and did interfere with Plaintiffs’ lawful and beneficial

remediation of a former sanitary landfill owned by Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners,

LLC located in Roxbury Township, New Jersey. Unhappy with Plaintiff’s landfill remediation

project because of the truck traffic associated therewith, Defendants initially sought to enjoin

Plaintiff’s activities through appropriate legal channels. However, when Plaintiff successfully

3

defended and defeated the injunction efforts in Court while simultaneously making public certain

undisputed facts about Defendants’ negligence and conflicts of interest, Defendants Bucco,

Martin, Kropp, NJDEP and Roxbury became incensed and thereafter, working in concert, and as

retribution for Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights of free speech and access to the Courts, set about

harming Plaintiffs in any way possible. Ignoring all proper legal procedures, Defendants

unlawfully and recklessly interfered with Plaintiff’s remediation project, deprived Plaintiffs of

their Constitutional rights, expressly and brazenly usurped judicial powers and ultimately, on

June 26, 2013, forcibly seized control of Plaintiff’s property and business without authority and

without legal or factual justification. Defendants Martin, NJDEP, Roxbury Township and

Atlantic Response, Inc. remain in possession and control of Plaintiff’s property and continue to

deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the United States Constitution in violation of State and

Federal law.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343 and

1367 and venue is properly set in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.

III. THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC (“SEP”) is and at all times

relevant hereto has been a Limited Liability Company incorporated and operating under the laws

of the State of New Jersey.

4

3. Plaintiff Marilyn Bernardi is an individual resident of the State of New Jersey and

at all times relevant hereto is and has been the sole member of Plaintiff SEP.

4. Plaintiff Richard Bernardi is an individual resident of the State of New Jersey and

at all times relevant hereto is and has been the husband of Plaintiff Marilyn Bernardi.

5. Defendant Senator Anthony Bucco (“Bucco”) is a resident of the State of New

Jersey and at all times relevant hereto has acted in his capacity as an elected member of the New

Jersey State Senate representing New Jersey’s 25th

Legislative District which includes the

Township of Roxbury.

6. Defendant State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(“NJDEP”) is and at all times relevant hereto has been a government agency existing as part of

the government of the State of New Jersey.

7. Defendant Robert Martin is and all times relevant hereto has acted in his capacity

as the Commissioner of Defendant NJDEP.

8. Defendant Township of Roxbury (“Roxbury” and/or “Roxbury Township”) is a

municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey and is a township

located in Morris County, New Jersey.

9. Defendant Fred Hall is an individual resident of New Jersey and at all times

relevant hereto has acted in his capacity as the Mayor of Defendant Township of Roxbury.

10. Defendant Daniel Marchese, Esq. is an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey

and at all times relevant hereto has acted jointly and in concert with Defendants Senator Bucco,

Township of Roxbury, Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP.

11. Defendant Irene Kropp is an individual resident of New Jersey and at all times

relevant hereto has acted in her capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of Defendant NJDEP.

5

12. Defendant Atlantic Response, Inc. is, upon information and belief, a New Jersey

corporation with a primary business address of 12D Connerty Court, East Brunswick, New

Jersey 08816 and at all times relevant hereto has acted jointly and in concert with Defendants

Martin, the NJDEP and the Township of Roxbury.

13. Defendant Christopher Raths is an individual resident of New Jersey and at all

times relevant hereto has acted in his capacity as the Manager of Defendant Township of

Roxbury.

IV. FACTS

A. History – the Property

14. In 2010, SEP acquired title to certain real property consisting of approximately

103 acres located in Roxbury Township, Morris County, New Jersey and designated as Lot 1 in

Block 7404 on the Roxbury Township Tax Map (hereinafter “SEP’s Property” and/or the

“Property” and/or the “Site”).

15. For nearly 3 decades prior to SEP’s acquisition of the Property, from

approximately 1951 to 1977, approximately 60 acres of the Property was used as a sanitary

landfill and was known as the “Fenimore Landfill” (the “Fenimore Landfill” or “Landfill”) (so

named by the long-time owner of the Property, Frank Fenimore).

16. The Fenimore Landfill was used primarily by Defendant Roxbury Township and

other local municipalities as a dump for household waste. In addition, the Fenimore Landfill

accepted barrels of chemical waste, junk equipment and vehicles, furniture and other bulky and

hazardous waste.

6

17. While the former Fenimore Landfill was in operation, waste was burned at the

Landfill and storm water runoff from the Landfill leached into the soil and waterways under and

around the Landfill.

18. In October 1979, citing environmental concerns, including the migration of

contaminated leachate offsite, the NJDEP entered an Order enjoining the former owner, Frank

Fenimore, Inc., from accepting any additional waste at the Landfill and ordering Frank

Fenimore, Inc. to “place adequate and complete final cover over the entire landfill.”

19. Although Frank Fenimore, Inc. ceased operating and accepting waste, the Landfill

was never properly “capped” or sealed off, nor were any environmental controls put in place to

control, mitigate or monitor the problems generally associated with active and abandoned

landfills such as the migration of landfill gases and contaminated leachate.

20. In December 1983, Defendant NJDEP filed a Complaint against Frank Fenimore,

Inc., the former owner of the landfill, seeking an order compelling Fenimore to take actions to

remediate the landfill. Paragraph 12 of the aforementioned 1983 NJDEP Verified Complaint

states in relevant part as follows:

Investigation and inspection of the Fenimore landfill by

representatives of the DEP, including the Division of Water

Resources, have revealed that leachate generated by the landfill,

but neither collected nor treated by defendants, enters into and

substantially impairs and degrades surrounding surface waters.

Such degradation is continuous and immediate…

21. In a 2005 report concerning the Property prepared at the request of Defendant

NJDEP, a private engineering firm opined that, “it is clear that the landfill needed to be properly

capped.”

7

22. In January 2012, Defendant NJDEP wrote a letter to Defendant Senator Bucco

which stated that “The proper closure of this landfill is of significant benefit to the area and

surrounding waters. Currently, untreated leachate flows into a tributary of Ledgewood Brook

which eventually empties into the Raritan River”.

B. History - Roxbury Approves Homes Built Next to the Landfill

23. When the Fenimore Landfill was in operation, and when it stopped accepting

hazardous waste, the area surrounding the Landfill was rural, undeveloped woodlands and open

space.

24. Sometime in the 1980s, not long after the Fenimore Landfill ceased operating,

Defendant Township of Roxbury, with full knowledge of the location and history of the Landfill

and the environmental hazards posed by the uncapped Landfill, re-zoned the surrounding

woodlands for residential development.

25. Shortly after re-zoning the surrounding woodlands for residential development,

Defendant Roxbury Township accepted an application for the construction of a residential

development immediately adjacent to the Landfill. The proposed residential development was to

be called “Poets Peak”.

26. Predictably, there was fierce opposition to the construction of homes right next to

the uncapped, hazardous landfill.

27. A Memo dated May 19, 1987 from the Roxbury Township Environmental

Commission to the Roxbury Township Planning Board in opposition to the construction of the

Poets Peak development stated as follows:

8

It should be noted that one of the primary concerns with the Fenimore

Landfill was that odor permeated the air as far away as Mine Hill.

Odors occurred only during the summer months. Subjecting existing

residential developments to similar or more noxious odors for a period of

6 to 7 months out of the year would be criminal. (emphasis added)

28. A July 29, 1987 letter sent on behalf of Defendant Roxbury Township

acknowledged the strong odors emanating from the Landfill, as follows:

It suffices to say that odor levels associated with the proposed

wastewater treatment technology [as part of the Poets Peak

development] will be undetectable compared to odors emanating from

the Fenimore Landfill

29. In October 1987, an attorney representing a group of Roxbury residents in

opposition to the proposed Poets Peak development wrote to the Roxbury Township Planning

Board and requested that the Township suspend any consideration of the developer’s application

to build Poets Peak “until definitive information is submitted concerning the possible health

effects of the interrelationship of the project and Fennimore’s landfill.”

30. In October 1988, a local environmental consultant wrote to the attorney for the

concerned Roxbury citizens group and said:

As a resident of Morris County who attempts to keep track of pollution

problems in our backyard, and doing almost all of my consulting in New

Jersey, the question is not IF the [Fenimore] Dump is a pollution source,

but how severe the problem really is.

31. In the 1990s, Defendant Roxbury Township, with full knowledge of the location

and history of the Landfill and the environmental hazards posed thereby, approved the

construction of the 315 home “Poets Peak” development.

32. In 1998, Defendant Township of Roxbury submitted to Defendant NJDEP a

request for funding under the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (“HDSRF”) in order

to remediate the Landfill. However, upon information and belief, Roxbury Township, fearing it

9

would be assuming liability for remediating the Site, ultimately declined to accept funding under

the HDSRF.

33. Roxbury Township and its officials were aware that homes within the Poets Peak

residential development were marketed for sale as featuring “open fields, mature woods and

rolling hills” without any mention of the proximity of the development to the uncapped former

Landfill which continued to leach hazardous waste into the surrounding soil and waterways.

34. Neither the Township of Roxbury nor its officials took any action to notify

purchasers and/or prospective purchasers of the homes in the Poets Peak residential development

of the location and proximity of the environmentally hazardous uncapped Landfill. In some

instances, Roxbury told prospective purchasers that the Landfill was “closed” but did not reveal

that while technically “closed”, meaning no longer in operation, the Landfill was not properly

“capped” and made environmentally safe.

C. Bucco’s Ties to the Poets Peak Developer

35. The aforementioned Poets Peak residential development was built by Bukiet

Building and Management Company (“Bukiet”) of Clifton, New Jersey.

36. Upon information and belief, Bukiet and/or its owner(s), principal(s),

shareholder(s), agent(s), affiliate(s) and/or subsidiaries have made political contributions to

Defendant Senator Bucco either through monetary donations directly to Senator Bucco’s

campaigns and/or through donations made to the campaign fund of Defendant Senator Bucco’s

son, New Jersey Assemblyman Anthony M. Bucco.

10

37. Upon information and belief, Bukiet and/or its affiliates continue to do business in

Roxbury and continue presently to build homes and other improvements and otherwise develop

property in Roxbury Township.

D. Plaintiff SEP Acquires the Property for Remediation and Redevelopment

38. In 2010, Plaintiff SEP acquired title to the Property. At no time prior to 2010 did

SEP hold any ownership interest in the Property, nor in any entity which held title to the

Property.

39. Plaintiffs did not pollute the Property, did not deposit municipal garbage on or at

the Property and never operated the Property as a sanitary landfill. Plaintiffs did not construct

homes or allow homes to be constructed immediately adjacent to the landfill.

40. To the contrary, Plaintiff SEP acquired the Property for the purpose and with the

intent of properly remediating the Landfill and developing the Property with photovoltaic solar

panels.

41. SEP’s plan to remediate the Landfill and develop the Site Property as a clean,

renewable energy park is consistent with and directly implements and furthers New Jersey

Governor Chris Cristie’s commitment to developing renewable sources of energy in New Jersey

that protect the environment and promote economic development. Converting landfills into solar

farms, like turning lemons into lemonade, is a practice which, upon information and belief, is

endorsed by the Sierra Club.

42. Defendant NJDEP has publicly recognized Governor Christie’s policy of

supporting alternative energy projects like SEP’s.

11

43. Plaintiffs have never received nor applied for nor requested any public funding.

SEP’s plan to remediate and redevelop the Site has at all times been and is a privately funded

environmental remediation project. There is no taxpayer money going into this project.

E. Bucco and Roxbury Oppose SEP’s Remediation Project

44. Defendants Bucco and Roxbury Township have at all times relevant hereto

opposed and resisted SEP’s plans to remediate the contaminated Landfill.

45. Upon information and belief, Bucco and the Township have always feared

liability for not acquiring and remediating the Site and for allowing so many homes to be

constructed next to the Landfill by Bucco’s political supporter, Bukiet.

46. Upon information and belief, Bucco and Roxbury have believed – correctly – that

the work necessary to remediate the Landfill, which by necessity must include several years of

heavy truck traffic along the residential streets which provide access to the Landfill, would be

unpopular with local residents.

47. In addition, upon information and belief, Bucco and Roxbury have believed –

correctly – that the heavy truck traffic and remediation work would cause local residents to

question the wisdom of the Township’s decision to allow residential construction next to the

Landfill and to wonder why the Township had always either concealed or downplayed the

existence and impact of the Landfill.

48. Defendant Senator Bucco’s son, Assemblyman Anthony M. Bucco, Esq., is the

Township Attorney for Defendant Roxbury Township.

49. Upon information and belief, Defendant Senator Bucco has at all times relevant

hereto been motivated in his opposition to SEP’s attempts to remediate the Landfill by his

interest in shielding his son’s client, Roxbury Township, from liability.

12

50. In 2007, while SEP was investigating the prospect of remediating the Landfill,

Defendant Senator Bucco’s son, Anthony M. Bucco, Esq., responded to an inquiry from SEP

about the Landfill project and stated that “the Township is not interested in pursuing this matter

further”, alleging that “the site…poses no immediate environmental concern.”

51. Bucco and the Township of Roxbury have at all times attempted to deny, conceal

and/or downplay the level of contamination of the Site in order to serve their own interest in

evading liability for their negligent handling of the Landfill and the houses built around it.

52. While SEP was in the process of obtaining permits from Defendant NJDEP to

proceed with the remediation of the Landfill, Plaintiff Richard Bernardi, an authorized agent of

SEP, met Defendant Senator Bucco at a meeting at Bucco’s office in Denville, New Jersey.

53. During this meeting, Senator Bucco told Mr. Bernardi that all permit applications

related to the Landfill would have to be submitted through Senator Bucco’s office. Senator

Bucco told Mr. Bernardi, “When I was the Mayor of Boonton Township, I wouldn’t let you walk

down the street without a permit.” Bucco’s message to Mr. Bernardi was that he, Bucco, was in

charge and would be calling all the shots related to the Fenimore Landfill.

54. SEP ignored Senator’s Bucco’s absurd demand that all permit applications go

through his office and declined to involve Bucco in its remediation project, which, upon

information and belief, frustrated and infuriated Senator Bucco.

55. In addition, from the outset, Defendant Roxbury Township demanded to have

access to SEP’s private property and insisted that SEP apply to the Township for permission to

undertake the remediation of the Landfill, notwithstanding that permission from the Township

was not required.

13

56. SEP did not comply with Roxbury’s demands. SEP’s lawful exercise of its right

not to grant Roxbury Township unfettered access to its property and/or to involve the Township

in every decision related to the remediation frustrated and angered Defendant Roxbury

Township, Senator Bucco, Mayor Fred Hall and Christopher Raths.

F. SEP’s Closure Permit and Relationship with NJDEP

57. In October 2011, the NJDEP issued to SEP a Closure Plan permit, pursuant to

which SEP was permitted to bring in fill material as part of the process of capping the old

landfill. The Closure Plan allows SEP to accept non-hazardous, recyclable materials such as

construction and demolition screenings (“CDS”) and other NJDEP-approved materials to be

deposited atop the existing historical garbage and hazardous waste. The NJDEP-approved

capping materials are not hazardous and do not further pollute the Landfill. This is the proven,

accepted and approved method of capping landfills in New Jersey.

58. In consideration for accepting the NJDEP-approved fill material, SEP would be

paid a tipping fee by the party supplying the fill material.

59. Several months after the Closure Plan was issued, a disagreement developed

between SEP and the NJDEP regarding certain provisions of the Closure Plan, particularly the

requirement in the Closure Plan that SEP deposit 100% of its income into an escrow account

controlled by the NJDEP, a provision that is not required under any local, State or Federal

statute, rule or regulation and which, in fact, directly conflicts with the New Jersey Landfill

Closure Act.

60. Because SEP would not escrow 100% of its tipping fees with the NJDEP, and

because SEP dared to allege that the NJDEP’s 100% escrow requirement was ultra vires, on

14

Friday, May 18, 2012, the NJDEP issued SEP an order commanding SEP to cease operations at

the Site.

61. In response, on Monday, May 21, 2012, SEP applied to the New Jersey Superior

Court, Morris County, Chancery Division, for injunctive relief against the NJDEP and received

an injunction by consent which permitted SEP to continue remediating the Landfill.

62. However, SEP’s lawful exercise of its right to seek relief in Court from the order

issued by the NJDEP incensed and frustrated Defendants Martin, the NJDEP, Bucco and

Roxbury Township.

63. Outside of Court, Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP escalated its efforts to

shut SEP down. In addition, Senator Bucco and his son’s client, the Township of Roxbury,

joined the NJDEP against SEP.

64. First, in July 2012, the NJDEP, working with the New Jersey Department of

Labor, conducted what they termed a “random inspection” of the trucks entering SEP’s Site

which was in reality a staged and premeditated arrangement to create the appearance that SEP

was accepting asbestos-containing-material (“ACM”).

65. The ACM allegedly discovered at SEP’s Site was found in a truck traveling to the

Site from a NJDEP-licensed Materials Recovery Facility (“MRF”) in South Plainfield, New

Jersey.

66. The South Plainfield MRF is controlled, licensed and inspected by the NJDEP.

67. The NJDEP admits that the South Plainfield MRF, which is the alleged source of

the ACM allegedly found at SEP’s Site, has a known history of disseminating asbestos

containing material to other landfills in New Jersey.

15

68. Upon information and belief, the day before the July 2012 inspection, the NJDEP

notified the New Jersey Department of Labor (“DOL”) that agents from the DOL were requested

to assist in an inspection of Fenimore because Fenimore was receiving material from the South

Plainfield MRF. Although SEP had no history or violations suggesting that SEP had accepted

any ACM, the NJDEP and the DOL conducted the inspection knowing or suspecting they would

discover ACM arriving from South Plainfield which they could use to shut down SEP’s project.

69. The alleged “discovery” of ACM at SEP’s Property was merely an interception by

the NJDEP of materials which the NJDEP knew would be delivered from the NJDEP- licensed

MRF with a known history of ACM violations and was intended by the NJDEP to give the Court

a reason to shut down SEP’s remediation project. It was a set-up by the NJDEP, authorized and

conceived by Defendant Commissioner Martin, intended to kill SEP’s project, punish SEP for

seeking protection in Court and teach SEP a lesson about who was really in charge.

70. The NJDEP applied to the Court for an injunction against SEP on the basis of the

discovered ACM. The Court denied the NJDEP’s application.

71. SEP’s victory in Court again enraged the Defendants. In response Defendants

NJDEP, Bucco, Martin and Roxbury Township stepped up their efforts to deprive Plaintiffs of

their Constitutional rights and to interfere with SEP’s lawful activities.

G. Defendants Attempt to Prevent Trucks from Delivering Fill Material to the Site

72. SEP’s NJDEP-approved Closure Permit calls for SEP to import approximately

1,200,000 (1.2 Million) cubic yards of NJDEP-approved fill material in order to properly cap the

garbage and to build up the platform upon which SEP would install solar panels.

16

73. Pursuant to the terms of the Closure Plan, the importation of sufficient amounts of

Fill Material to cap the Site would take approximately four (4) years.

74. The non-hazardous Fill Material required under the Closure Permit must be

delivered from the various sources of the Fill Material to the Property by large trucks (the

“Trucks”).

75. In order to access the Property, the Trucks carrying the Fill Material must travel

on the residential streets which the Township of Roxbury constructed and/or allowed to be

constructed around the Landfill.

76. Truck traffic is not a prohibited use on the roads around the Landfill.

77. Upon information and belief, shortly after the Trucks began delivering Fill

Material to the Site in or around December 2011, some local residents began complaining to the

Township of Roxbury about the Trucks.

78. However, nothing was done in response to the complaints from Roxbury

Township residents during the months of December 2011 through June 2012.

79. Then, in July 2012, frustrated and angered that SEP had successfully withstood

Defendants’ efforts to shut down the landfill remediation project in Court, Defendants again

attempted to circumvent the Court’s authority and violate Plaintiffs’ rights by stopping the flow

of trucks to the Site.

80. Working cooperatively, Defendants NJDEP, Township of Roxbury, Bucco and

Martin enlisted the services of the New Jersey State Police to pull over and detain all trucks

traveling to and from the Landfill.

81. Beginning on or about Wednesday, July 18, 2012 (i.e. about 8 months after the

Trucks began traveling to SEP’s Property, but less than a week after the Court denied Defendant

17

NJDEP’s request for an injunction against SEP on the basis of the alleged ACM discovery), at

the request and insistence of Defendants, New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents

began pulling over, stopping and detaining all Trucks traveling on Mooney Road to SEP’s

Property.

82. The New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents did not pull over, stop

or detain any other vehicles – only Trucks headed to the Landfill. Although there were other

large trucks traveling on Route 206 to other destinations, such trucks were not pulled over; only

the Trucks that turned onto Mooney Road en route to the Fenimore Landfill were stopped.

83. The New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents even pulled over,

stopped and detained trucks traveling to SEP’s Property which were not carrying Fill Material,

such as the truck that delivers fuel to SEP’s Property and the water supply truck which SEP

required to control dust at the Site.

84. The New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents stated to the drivers of

the Trucks things such as “The Township of Roxbury doesn’t want the trucks here anymore,”

“People in Roxbury want the trucks off their roads, so we’re stopping all of the trucks”, and

“We’re checking all trucks going to the Fenimore site.” One State Trooper advised Plaintiff

Richard Bernardi that the truck stops were ordered through the Township of Roxbury at the

instruction of the State of New Jersey and that the stops would continue “for months”.

85. In some instances, New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents issued

summonses for minor violations such as low tire pressure and/or discharged fire extinguisher.

86. In many other instances, the New Jersey State Police Troopers and NJDOT agents

merely stopped the Trucks and detained them without issuing any citation(s).

18

87. The truck stops were intended to deter truck drivers from delivering materials to

SEP’s Property as a means of choking off SEP’s income stream.

88. There is no statute, regulation and/or other law which prohibited SEP from

operating its business by accepting Fill Material brought to the Property by the Trucks.

89. There is no Court Order nor any other authority granting Defendants the right or

the authority to effectively shut down SEP’s business as Defendants sought and attempted to do.

90. To the contrary, on July 19, 2012, following a hearing on the record before the

Court, the Court issued an Order granting SEP injunctive relief against Defendant NJDEP which

expressly prohibited the NJDEP from taking any action to prevent SEP from accepting Fill

Material at the Property.

91. Upon information provided by SEP’s prior counsel, who on behalf of SEP had

multiple meetings with Defendants Martin, Roxbury and the NJDEP, at or around this time –

July 2012 through and including November 2012 – Defendant Senator Bucco was actively and

aggressively seeking to assist his son’s client, Roxbury Township, and serve his own personal

agenda against SEP by making frequent contact via cell phone and other means with New Jersey

Governor Chris Christie.

92. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bucco implored the New Jersey

Governor to either take action himself against SEP or to instruct Defendant Martin to increase

his efforts to stop the trucks traveling to the Landfill.

H. Odor Complaints

93. In November 2012, residents living near the Landfill began complaining of a foul

odor in the air.

19

94. Shortly after residents began complaining, the NJDEP notified Plaintiff SEP that

the NJDEP believed the odors were emanating from the CDS materials on the Site, specifically

the gypsum found in wallboard which constitutes a portion of CDS. SEP was at all times

permitted by the NJDEP to accept CDS at the Site.

95. Almost as soon as the odor complaints began in November 2012, Defendants

NJDEP and Roxbury Township applied to the New Jersey Superior Court for an injunction

against SEP. Defendants asked that SEP cease accepting CDS until SEP had covered all CDS

material on the Site with “daily cover”, i.e. cover soil.

96. The Court denied the injunction request, finding that SEP had covered the Site

with cover soil and had complied with the Court’s instructions related thereto.

97. However, in the context of the NJDEP’s request for an injunction, SEP filed with

the Court a pleading which brought to light an inconvenient truth about the NJDEP, a move that

incensed Commissioner Martin.

I. SEP Discloses that NJDEP Deputy Commissioner Irene Kropp’s Husband Owns a

Landfill in New Jersey Which Competes with SEP for Tipping Fees from CDS.

98. In response to the NJDEP’s and Roxbury Township’s November 2012 application

for an order enjoining SEP from accepting any more CDS, SEP submitted to the Court a

Certification of Plaintiff Richard Bernardi wherein Mr. Bernardi certified that, upon information

and belief, the Mullica Hill Landfill located in Harrison Township, New Jersey, is owned by

Brian Horne, the husband of Defendant NJDEP Deputy Commissioner Irene Kropp.

99. Mr. Bernardi’s certification accurately stated that the NJDEP’s second-in-

command is, via her marriage to Brian Horne, the owner of a landfill in South Jersey which, like

20

SEP’s property, earns tipping fees from the acceptance of fill material such as CDS. In other

words, Defendant Irene Kropp directly competes with SEP for CDS revenue.

100. More to the point, SEP’s submission to the Court in November 2012, which was a

lawful exercise of SEP’s and Mr. Bernardi’s right of free speech under the First Amendment,

accurately and truthfully informed the Court that the NJDEP’s request for injunctive relief

against SEP, if granted, would result in an immediate and substantial financial benefit to

Defendant NJDEP Deputy Commissioner Irene Kropp by redirecting shipments of revenue-

generating CDS from SEP’s property to the Mullica Hill landfill owned by Kropp’s husband.

101. Mr. Bernardi’s Certification cited specific examples of third parties who delivered

CDS to both SEP and Mullica Hill, thereby demonstrating that if SEP were shut down, those

sources of CDS would deliver the CDS to Irene Kropp’s landfill in South Jersey.

102. Subsequently, in January 2013, SEP filed a complaint with the New Jersey State

Ethics Commission alleging that Defendants Martin and Kropp were in violation of the New

Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12, et seq., by virtue of the Deputy

Commissioner’s ownership interest in a landfill which competes with SEP, which is regulated by

the NJDEP.

103. SEP’s Ethics Complaint against Martin and Kropp correctly disclosed that on

November 29, 2012, Defendant Robert Martin visited SEP’s Site accompanied by Defendant

Deputy Commissioner Irene Kropp and other NJDEP officials. SEP’s Ethics Complaint also

correctly stated that within a few hours of Kropp’s visit to the Site on November 29, 2012, SEP

was served with a Notice of Violation alleging that Plaintiff had violated a condition of SEP’s

Closure Plan and that twenty hours later, the NJDEP applied to the New Jersey Superior Court,

21

Morris County, Chancery Division, for an Order to Show Cause seeking to restrain SEP from

accepting any more material, including C&D Screenings.

104. The Ethics Complaint filed by SEP was, again, a lawful exercise of Plaintiffs’

right to engage in free speech as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

105. Upon information and belief, the Ethics Complaint filed by SEP incensed

Commissioner Martin and Defendant Irene Kropp and thereafter motivated and influenced all of

the NJDEP’s, Martin’s, Kropp’s and the remaining Defendants’ actions toward SEP.

J. Defendants Seek Relief From Bucco’s Own Judge

106. In late November and throughout December 2012, Defendants NJDEP and

Roxbury Township were jointly applying to the Superior Court, Chancery Division (Hon.

Deanne M. Wilson, J.S.C.) for injunctive relief against SEP. But Defendants were unsuccessful

in Court.

107. Therefore, realizing that Judge Wilson was not persuaded that the alleged odors

justified interrupting the beneficial remediation project, and understanding that Judge Wilson, by

handling the matter carefully and methodically, would not give Defendants the immediate

victory they desired, Defendants conspired again to evade due process by going to their own

judge, Judge Maenza.

108. Judge Philip J. Maenza, J.S.C. is an untenured Family Court Judge in Morris

County.

109. Upon information and belief, Defendant Senator Bucco has close personal and

political ties to Judge Maenza.

22

110. In fact, upon information and belief, Senator Bucco’s support and endorsement of

Judge Maenza was instrumental in Judge Maenza’s being appointed to the Superior Court in

2010, a fact Senator Bucco has bragged about.

111. Judge Maenza is not tenured. Under New Jersey law, in order to become tenured,

Judge Maenza must receive the approval of Senator Bucco.

112. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, both Judge Maenza and

Senator Bucco have known and understood that Bucco can and will directly influence Judge

Maenza’s future as a Superior Court Judge.

113. Accordingly, because Senator Bucco and his son’s client, Roxbury Township,

could not achieve victory with Judge Wilson, Defendants arranged to have Judge Maenza, who is

beholden to Senator Bucco, issue a restraining order against SEP without putting SEP or Judge

Wilson on notice of the underlying application.

114. Bucco and Roxbury did this by enlisting the services of Defendant Daniel

Marchese, Esq., who, on behalf of certain Roxbury residents, prepared a Verified Complaint and

application for an Order to Show Cause.

115. Defendants Bucco, Roxbury, NJDEP, Commissioner Martin, Marchese and Judge

Maenza conspired to have Marchese appear before Judge Maenza and obtain a restraining order

without complying with Rule 4:52-1 of the New Jersey Rules of Court which requires notice to

the party against whom restraints are sought.

116. On December 31, 2012, New Years Eve, at approximately 3:30 P.M., with full

knowledge of the name and contact information of SEP’s lawyer, with full knowledge that for

the previous 6 months all claims relating to the Landfill were being handled by Judge Wilson,

but without giving any notice to SEP’s lawyer or to Judge Wilson, Defendant Daniel Marchese

23

personally entered Judge Maenza’s chambers with a form of Order to Show Cause with

Temporary Restraints ordering that SEP “cease and desist” accepting all fill material at the

Landfill.

117. None of the claims made in Marchese’s Verified Complaint had anything at all to

do with family law and had no business in the world being before Judge Maenza, a Family Court

Judge. The only reason Marchese went to Maenza was because Maenza can be and is controlled

by Senator Bucco.

118. At no time did Defendant Daniel Marchese or Judge Maenza make any attempt to

put SEP and/or SEP’s lawyer on notice that Marchese had applied for restraints against SEP.

119. Without attempting to contact SEP or attempting to verify that Marchese had

noticed SEP of the application for restraints, Judge Maenza signed and entered the Order

enjoining SEP from continuing with its landfill remediation.

120. Upon information and belief, Marchese’s appearance before Judge Maenza on

New Years Eve 2012 was not on the record. It was a clandestine meeting between Marchese and

Maenza which had been arranged by and through Senator Bucco, Commissioner Martin and the

NJDEP.

121. At 6:25 P.M. on New Years Eve, after the Court had closed for the holiday break,

Marchese sent an email to SEP’s lawyers with an attached copy of Judge Maenza’s Order with

Temporary Restraints.

122. Marchese’s email was sent to two (2) lawyers for SEP and two (2) additional

email addresses of a known agent of SEP. Clearly Marchese was aware of how to contact SEP

and had the means and the opportunity to notify SEP in advance of his appearance in Judge

Maenza’s chambers. In addition, given the volume of pleadings filed by Marchese, including a

24

Verified Complaint and voluminous Certifications, the application clearly took at least several

days to prepare, during which time Marchese could have but did not notify SEP or SEP’s lawyer.

123. On January 1, 2013, SEP’s lawyer contacted the acting emergent judge for Morris

County to find out how an order granting restraints could have been granted by Maenza without

any notice to the party restrained and while all interested parties knew at all times that Judge

Wilson was handling all matters related to the Fenimore Landfill.

124. On January 2, 2013, SEP applied for and was granted by Judge Wilson an Order

dissolving the restraints imposed by Family Court Judge Maenza’s December 31, 2013 Order.

125. Prior to going on the record with SEP’s motion to dissolve restraints, Judge

Wilson talked in chambers with Marchese and SEP’s attorney, Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq.

Noting that the NJDEP should be a participant in any discussions and any proceedings related to

the Landfill, Judge Wilson placed a telephone call to the Attorney General’s office to speak with

NJDEP’s lawyers. During this telephone call, which was on speaker phone in Judge Wilson’s

chambers, the Deputy Attorneys General representing the NJDEP advised Judge Wilson that on

Friday, December 28, 2012, Defendant Dan Marchese had notified them of his intent to apply to

Family Court Judge Maenza for restraints.

126. Marchese informed the NJDEP of his intentions on Friday December 28, 2012,

but intentionally, maliciously and with intent to deprive SEP of its right to due process, and in

accordance with the conspiracy among all Defendants, purposely concealed his intentions from

SEP until after Judge Maenza had signed the Order and after the Court had closed for the

holiday.

127. It was immediately apparent that Senator Bucco had orchestrated Marchese’s

application to the untenured Judge Maenza. During a follow-up hearing on the record on

25

January 10, 2013, Judge Wilson explained why she set aside Judge Maenza’s restraints and

commented in relevant part as follows:

…there are a lot of countries in the world, in fact most countries in the

world where you don’t get an independent judge on the bench. You

get a judge who was appointed by somebody in government and that

government person calls him or her and says, look it, Anthony Bucco

is coming before you and this is what he wants. I want to make sure

he doesn’t get it, or they might say I want to make sure that he does

get it. And by the way, Judge Wilson, in case you don’t understand

this, your term is up in three months. And you are out of here unless

you do it my way. So it is my way or the highway. You know, we

don’t think about things like that in the United States. We don’t have

that kind of court system. Our system runs on evidence, intelligent

resolution of disputes and sometimes that takes time.

128. Upon information and belief, Marchese never intended to actually prosecute and

to date has not actively prosecuted an action for damages on behalf of those Roxbury residents

he purported to represent. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Marchese

was merely a shill for Bucco, Martin, the NJDEP and Roxbury Township whose lone assignment

was to visit Judge Maenza on New Years Eve and get the pre-arranged Restraining Order.

K. Defendants Prevent SEP from Properly Addressing the Odor Complaints

129. Thereafter, the complaints from residents about the odor continued and SEP

continued to make good faith efforts to mitigate the alleged odors with the instruction and

guidance of SEP’s expert landfill engineer, Mr. Assadi.

130. Upon Mr. Assadi’s instruction, SEP applied to the NJDEP for permission to

undertake various steps to address the odor complaints.

26

131. Specifically, SEP diligently and in good faith pursued ways to limit the emission

of hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) from the Site including application of odor control products (i.e.

deodorants) and re-contouring the Site to allow more area to be covered by soil.

132. Upon information from Mr. Assadi, the leading expert in this field, the standard

and accepted method of addressing and mitigating odor emissions from uncapped landfills

during the remediation process is by applying cover soil.

133. However, after Judge Wilson vacated Judge Maenza’s Restraining Order,

Defendants NJDEP, Bucco, Martin and Roxbury Township realized that the Court would not

enjoin SEP from remediating the Landfill unless SEP failed to mitigate the odors. Defendants

quickly recognized that the odors caused residents to complain and that the more people

complained, the more likely a Court would be to order SEP to cease its remediation project. Best

of all, Defendants immediately understood that they possessed the ability to restrict and foil any

efforts by SEP to mitigate the H2S emissions, thereby prolonging and exacerbating the problem,

thereby increasing Defendants’ political and legal leverage over SEP.

134. Accordingly, thereafter, Defendants arbitrarily, capriciously and maliciously

interfered with, blocked, frustrated and prevented SEP’s efforts to address the odor complaints.

135. Specifically, Defendants intentionally delayed answering SEP’s requests for

permission to take certain actions, intentionally and maliciously withheld permission for SEP to

undertake certain remedial action, and called upon the State Police to pull over and detain and

deter trucks carrying cover soil to the Site, while simultaneously encouraging residents to

register complaints about the odor. Roxbury Township even put up a large, lighted traffic sign

on the highway urging residents to call the NJDEP hotline to register complaints about “the

landfill odor”.

27

L. Bucco, Martin and the NJDEP Eliminate the Courts

136. As SEP continued with its remediation efforts and Defendants continued to

interfere therewith, Defendants continued to seek a Court order shutting SEP down.

137. However, because they were unsuccessful in Court using existing rules and laws,

Defendants conspired to confiscate SEP’s property another way, this time by changing the rules

and using extra-judicial measures.

138. First, Roxbury Township raised SEP’s taxes by more than two-thousand percent

(2,000%). In a non-revaluation year, the Roxbury Township Tax Assessor, working in concert

with Defendants, increased SEP’s tax assessment from $525,000 in 2012 to a new assessment in

2013 of $11,631,000.

139. Simultaneously, while Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP continued to

hamper, frustrate and block efforts by SEP to remediate the Landfill and to address the ongoing

odor complaints, Senator Bucco drafted and proposed a new law intended to get around the

Court system and deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.

140. On March 4, 2013, Senator Bucco, representing his son’s client, Roxbury

Township and District 25, submitted a proposed legislative bill the express purpose and intent of

which was to authorize the NJDEP to seize SEP’s private property and “assume responsibility

for the proper closure of the Fenimore Landfill in Roxbury Township, Morris County.”

141. Senator Bucco’s legislation (S-2617) (hereinafter the “Fenimore Bill”) had no

other provisions or purpose; it would be a new law giving the NJDEP the express authority to

seize SEP’s property without compensation or due process. Senator Bucco was taking the matter

away from the Court. Bucco was playing judge and issuing orders.

28

142. Subsequently, the Fenimore Bill was modified and amended by the Senate, but it

was still expressly targeted at “Legacy Landfills”, which are sanitary landfills, like Fenimore,

which ceased operating before January 1, 1982.

143. The new Fenimore Bill, as amended by the Senate on June 6, 2013, contained a

provision establishing a broad, State-wide standard for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions.

144. The June 6, 2013 amended Fenimore Bill states in relevant part as follows: “There

is a maximum air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide of 30 parts per billion averaged over a

period of 30 minutes.” This standard was not limited to Legacy Landfills and would be

applicable to all parties and all properties.

145. However, on or about June 16, 2013, Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP made

proposed amendments to the Fenimore Bill. Among the changes proposed by the NJDEP was a

limitation of the hydrogen sulfide standard to apply only to Legacy Landfills.

146. The NJDEP took the Senate’s broad “maximum air quality standard for hydrogen

sulfide” language and changed it to read as follows:

4. a. There is established a maximum air quality standard for

Hydrogen sulfide levels emanating from a legacy landfill or a closed

sanitary landfill facility shall not (sic) exceed 30 parts per billion

averaged over a period of any 30 minutes to be measured at the

property line of a legacy landfill. (emphasis original)

147. In other words, Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP were not and are not

concerned about malodorous H2S emissions from other sites which might bother other New

Jersey residents. This Fenimore Bill was never aimed at addressing an alleged environmental

problem; it was never about the odors. Bucco’s new law has always had but one aim – to stop

the trucks traveling to SEP’s property by allowing the NJDEP to seize the Site and thereby

prevail over SEP. The odors provided the political means by which Defendants could finally

29

defeat SEP and Defendants unconscionably prolonged the odors long enough to change the law

and circumvent the Court.

148. In the meantime, while the Bucco Bill was pending, Defendants Roxbury

Township and the NJDEP filed an emergent application in the New Jersey Superior Court

seeking an order authorizing the NJDEP to assume control of the Landfill and to undertake

certain actions such as the application of an alternative cover material known as “Posi-Shell” and

the installation of stick flares intended to burn off the H2S.

149. The joint application filed by the NJDEP and Roxbury Township was made

returnable by the Court Friday, June 28, 2013.

150. On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, two days before Roxbury and the NJDEP were to

appear in Court to argue their request for emergent relief, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

approved and signed the Fenimore Bill. The final Fenimore Bill reflects and includes the

changes made by the NJDEP to the hydrogen sulfide provision. The new law reads in relevant

part as follows:

C.13:1E-125.4

4. a. Hydrogen sulfide levels emanating from a legacy landfill

or closed sanitary landfill facility shall not exceed 30 parts per billion

averaged over a period of any 30 minutes to be measured at the

property line of a legacy landfill or closed sanitary landfill facility.

151. At nearly the exact time in the morning (9:45 A.M.) that Governor Christie

enacted the Fenimore Bill, the NJDEP, having prior knowledge of the exact time that Governor

Christie would sign the new Bucco legislation, served upon Plaintiffs an Emergency Order

authorizing the NJDEP to seize control of SEP’s Property.

152. The June 26, 2013 Emergency Order alleges that SEP violated the 30-minute

hydrogen sulfide standard established by the Fenimore Bill.

30

153. At the time the Emergency Order was signed by NJDEP Commissioner Bob

Martin, the Fenimore Bill had been in effect for only minutes, possibly only seconds. In fact, the

timing of the service of the Emergency Order makes clear that the Emergency Order was signed

by NJDEP Commissioner Martin before the new law was in effect. In any event, 30 minutes had

not elapsed between the time the Governor signed the new law and the time SEP was served with

the Emergency Order. Clearly the Governor’s office, Bob Martin, Senator Bucco, Roxbury

Township and the NJDEP had carefully coordinated the timing of the Governor’s signing of the

new law.

154. Between the time the new Fenimore Bill was enacted and the time the NJDEP

issued and served its Emergency Order, the NJDEP took no measurements of hydrogen sulfide at

or near SEP’s Property. The NJDEP made no effort to satisfy the new standard of 30 parts per

billion measured over 30 minutes.

155. Simultaneous with its service of the Emergency Order, the NJDEP seized control

of SEP’s Property by entering the Site with armed New Jersey State Troopers. The NJDEP

agents who entered the Site were accompanied by third party contractors including Defendant

Atlantic Response, Inc. They unloaded heavy equipment and machinery and immediately began

bulldozing and re-grading SEP’s Property.

156. On the same day, June 26, 2013, NJDEP Commissioner Bob Martin issued a press

release wherein Commissioner Martin stated, “The DEP has pursued every legal and

administrative remedy available to us to eliminate the environmental and odor problems caused

by the neglect of the property owner.”

31

157. On that morning, June 26, 2013, NJDEP Commissioner Bob Martin also told

news reporters that the NJDEP “has tried every legal remedy to close the landfill, but the courts

have not acted. With Gov. Christie signing the bill, DEP has the authority to do it.”

158. The June 26, 2013 Emergency Order was issued two (2) days before the New

Jersey Superior Court (Hon. Donald S. Coburn, J.S.C.) was scheduled to hear Roxbury’s and

NJDEP’s application for Court permission to seize the Site. Rather than risk another loss in

Court, the Defendants charged ahead in order to eliminate the possibility that the due process

which is guaranteed to Plaintiffs would again protect Plaintiffs from Defendants’ relentless,

malicious and unlawful attack.

159. In the weeks preceding enactment of the Fenimore Bill, despite Defendants’

interference, SEP had substantially mitigated the hydrogen sulfide levels on and off the Site by

applying a thick layer of cover soil as originally instructed by the NJDEP and as recommended

by SEP’s project engineer.

160. Hydrogen sulfide measurements taken both by the Township of Roxbury and SEP

confirm that prior to June 26, 2013, the last time the Township’s monitors measured hydrogen

sulfide at a level of 30 ppb for 30 minutes was on June 18, 2013 at approximately 7:13 A.M. to

7:43 A.M. There were no such elevated readings the remainder of June 18th

, nor were there any

such elevated readings on June 19, June 20th

, June 21st, June 22

nd, June 23

rd, June 24

th, or June

25th

– i.e more than a week of no high readings of hydrogen sulfide in Roxbury Township.

SEP’s hydrogen sulfide measurements taken on June 25, 2013 reinforce the fact that no elevated

levels of hydrogen sulfide were being emitted from SEP’s property.

32

161. The NJDEP has reported that it took no readings of H2S on June 24th

and June

25th

. In the days preceding their seizure of SEP’s property on the basis that SEP’s property was

emitting nuisance levels of H2S, the NJDEP took no readings of H2S.

162. SEP had contracted to bring in large volumes of additional cover soil to be

applied to the Site to further mitigate the H2S emissions. On June 26, 2013, SEP was actively in

the process of accepting these additional truckloads of soil when Defendants stormed the Site. It

was likely that there would never again have been an elevated reading of H2S at the Site, but

Defendants made sure this would never be known because they seized the Property, bulldozed

the Site and greatly exacerbated the odors.

163. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants knew and understood from multiple

experts that the hydrogen sulfide levels while the Property was under SEP’s control did not

constitute a threat to the public health and/or safety.

164. Since taking over the Site, Defendants’ activities have made the hydrogen sulfide

emissions rise to unprecedented levels. On the weekend of July 28, 2013, the hydrogen sulfide

levels spiked so high that the Township of Roxbury was prompted to twice (2x) issue a warning

to its residents about the H2S and to open a respite center where affected residents could seek

relief, something never done during the time SEP possessed and controlled the site.

165. Again on August 20, 2013, the hydrogen sulfide levels off-Site spiked to at least

369 parts per billion.

166. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Roxbury Township, Christopher Raths,

Atlantic Response, Inc., Senator Bucco and Roxbury Mayor Fred Hall have supported,

participated in and assisted Commissioner Martin and the NJDEP with its unlawful seizure of

SEP’s Property.

33

167. At the time Defendants seized SEP’s Property, all Defendants knew or should

have known that the NJDEPs proposed plan to eliminate the H2S emissions – which the NJDEP

stated would take approximately 3 weeks – would not effectively reduce or eliminate the H2S

emissions.

168. SEP’s project engineer, Mr. Assadi, repeatedly advised the NJDEP that the

actions proposed by the NJDEP such as applying a product known as “Posi-Shell” and installing

stick flares would have no appreciable effect on the hydrogen sulfide levels on or off the

Property and that the only effective means of controlling the H2S emissions before the Landfill

is capped is through the use of cover soil, which SEP had done.

169. The NJDEP has now admitted that its use of Posi-Shell and stick flares has been

ineffective and that a new timetable and a new approach for addressing the markedly worse

odors is appropriate. Eight (8) weeks have gone by and the NJDEP is stating it will likely take

several more weeks to finish the job. However, according to the opinion of SEP’s engineer, Mr.

Assadi, the recognized authority on this subject, the actions taken by the NJDEP are not likely to

mitigate the odor issue.

170. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Township of Roxbury has delegated to

Roxbury Mayor Fred Hall the responsibility for approving the Township’s position, plans and

actions related to the Fenimore Landfill and Defendants’ improper, unlawful and ill-advised

seizure thereof.

171. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Commissioner Bob Martin has been

ultimately responsible for establishing, controlling, guiding, dictating and overseeing Defendant

NJDEP’s handling and treatment of Plaintiffs and policies and procedures related to the

Fenimore Landfill.

34

172. Defendants have not provided any compensation to Plaintiffs for Defendants’

unlawful seizure of the Property.

COUNT ONE

Violation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983

(General Allegations)

173. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1-172 of this Complaint.

174. In committing the acts complained of herein, Defendants acted under color of

state law to deprive Plaintiffs of certain constitutionally protected rights under the First, Fifth,

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States including, but not limited

to: (a) the right not to be deprived of property without due process of law; (b) the right to just

compensation for taking of property; (c) the right to exercise free speech without fear of

governmental retaliation; (d) the right to equal protection of the laws.

175. In violating Plaintiffs’ rights as set forth above and other rights that will be proven

at trial, Defendants acted under color of state law.

176. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of their constitutional rights by

the Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages as alleged in this Complaint and

are entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C §1983.

177. The conduct of Defendants was willful, malicious, oppressive and/or reckless, and

was of such a nature that punitive damages should be imposed in an amount commensurate with

the wrongful acts alleged herein.

35

COUNT II


(Deprivation of Property Without Due Process of Law)



179. Each Defendant, in concert and conspiracy with the other Defendants,

intentionally violated the civil rights of the Plaintiffs by their malicious and wanton disregard for

Plaintiffs’ property rights. Defendants’ actions described herein amounted to the deprivation of

property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

180. By and through their actions described herein, Defendants actually and

proximately inflicted an outrageous violation of constitutional rights upon Plaintiffs, for which

Defendants are liable and Plaintiffs seek damages therefor.

181. Defendants, either with the specific intent to violate the Plaintiffs’ civil rights or

with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing that violation, set about harassing and

interfering with Plaintiffs’ lawful remediation activities in such a manner that it went beyond the

bounds of decency. Defendants’ actions are and should be considered atrocious and utterly

intolerable in a civilized community which is founded upon the rule of law and not upon the

whims and malicious bullying tactics of local politicians, corrupt judges and vindictive and

malicious State agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive

damages.

COUNT III


(Deprivation of Plaintiff’s Substantive Due Process Rights)

36



183. Each Defendant, in concert and conspiracy with the other Defendants, and with

malicious and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, intentionally violated

Plaintiffs’ right to substantive due process of law by and through their role in creating,

proposing, adopting, ratifying, obeying, following, enforcing, furthering or otherwise acting in

concert with the other Defendants who played a role in pushing through and adopting the new

Bucco Legislation (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-125 et seq.) which is itself unconstitutional inasmuch as it is

clearly special legislation intended to harm Plaintiffs, it usurps judicial authority and improperly

infringes upon and violates the New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et

seq.

184. By and through their actions described herein, Defendants actually and

proximately inflicted an outrageous violation of constitutional rights upon Plaintiffs, for which

Defendants are liable and Plaintiffs seek damages therefor.

185. Defendants, either with the specific intent to violate the Plaintiffs’ civil rights or

with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing that violation, set about harassing and

interfering with Plaintiffs’ lawful remediation activities in such a manner that it went beyond the

bounds of decency. Defendants’ actions are and should be considered atrocious and utterly

intolerable in a civilized community which is founded upon the rule of law and not upon the

whims and malicious bullying tactics of local politicians, corrupt judges and vindictive and

malicious State agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive

damages.

37

COUNT IV

New Jersey Civil Rights Act

(N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq.)



187. While acting under color of state law, Defendants, by and through their actions

described herein, have deprived and/or interfered with Plaintiffs’ substantive due process and

equal protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States.

188. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby bring a civil action for damages and other

appropriate relief pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2.

189. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Defendants

described herein, Plaintiffs suffered substantial losses and emotional distress and suffering.

COUNT V

New Jersey Common Law

(Civil Conspiracy)



191. Each Defendant named herein, by and through their actions described above,

knowingly and maliciously participated in a common design through a concert of action to

violate Plaintiffs’ rights and to harass and interfere with Plaintiff’s lawful activities.

192. In committing the aforementioned acts, each Defendant directly and proximately

injured, damaged, and caused emotional distress and financial damages to the Plaintiffs herein.

38

COUNT VI


(Deprivation of Property Without Just Compensation)



194. Each Defendant, in concert and conspiracy with the other Defendants, by and

through their actions described herein, deprived Plaintiffs of their property without just

compensation, for which Defendants are liable and Plaintiffs seek damages therefor.

195. Plaintiffs are entitled to the fair value of their property of which they have been

deprived by Defendants.

196. Plaintiffs seek a judgment in the amount of the fair value of the property of which

they have been deprived, specifically: (a) the real property located on Mountain Road in

Roxbury Township, New Jersey which is the subject of this action; (b) Plaintiffs’ use and

enjoyment of the subject real property, (c) the value of Plaintiff Marilyn Bernardi’s membership

interest in and to Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC.

COUNT VII


(Conversion)



198. At all times relevant hereto prior to December 31, 2012, and then again from

January 3, 2013 to June 26, 2013, Plaintiff Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC has held clear

39

legal ownership and possession of the subject real property located on Mountain Road in

Roxbury Township, New Jersey.

199. Defendants, by and through their actions described herein, have conspired to

convert and have in fact unlawfully converted Plaintiffs’ property to property owned, controlled

and/or occupied by Commissioner Martin, the NJDEP, Atlantic Response, Inc. and/or Roxbury

Township.

200. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conversion of Plaintiff’s real property,

Plaintiff SEP has been harmed.

COUNT VIII


(Tortious Interference with Contract)



202. At all times relevant hereto Plaintiffs SEP and Richard Bernardi were parties to a

contract with Defendant NJDEP related to the remediation of the Landfill.

203. Defendants, by and through their actions described herein, have knowingly,

intentionally, maliciously and with intent to deprive Plaintiffs of the benefits and rights under

said contract with the NJDEP actively and effectively interfered with said contract.

204. Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ contract was wholly unjustified and

unlawful.

205. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and malicious interference with Plaintiff’s

contract, Plaintiffs have been harmed.

40

COUNT IX


(Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)



207. At all times relevant hereto Plaintiff SEP had a protectable right in the form of a

protectable prospective economic advantage related to SEP’s remediation of the Landfill and

redevelopment of the Property.

208. Defendants, by and through their actions described herein, have knowingly,

intentionally, maliciously and with intent to deprive Plaintiff of the benefits and rights of its

prospective economic advantage, conspired to interfere with and did interfere with Plaintiff’s

prospective economic advantage.

209. Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ prospective economic advantage was

wholly unjustified and unlawful.

210. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and malicious interference with Plaintiff’s

contract, Plaintiffs have been harmed.

COUNT IX

Declaratory Judgment

(28 U.S.C. §2201)



212. Plaintiffs request from the Court a Declaratory Judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2201 declaring the new Bucco Bill (N.J.S.A. 13:1E-125 et seq.) unconstitutional and of no

41

force and/or effect as against Plaintiff for any act, omission and/or conduct which occurred prior

to the enactment of said bill on June 26, 2013.

COUNT X

Conflict of Interest

(N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.)



214. Defendants Senator Bucco and Irene Kropp, by virtue of their actions as described

herein, have violated the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, N.J.S.A. 52:13D-12 et seq.

215. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the New Jersey Conflict

of Interest Law, Plaintiffs have been harmed.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the above facts and claims considered, Plaintiffs demand:

1. That process issue to the Defendants and that they be required to answer in the

time allowed by law.

2. That judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on

all causes of action asserted herein.

3. That Plaintiffs be awarded those damages to which it may appear they are entitled

by the proof submitted in this cause for their physical and mental pain and suffering, both past

42

MATTHEW M. FREDERICKS, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC,

Marilyn Bernardi and Richard Bernardi

By: /s/ Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq._____

Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq.

DATED: August 21, 2013

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury in this action.

MATTHEW M. FREDERICKS, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

Strategic Environmental Partners, LLC,

Marilyn Bernardi and Richard Bernardi

By: /s/ Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq.____

Matthew M. Fredericks, Esq.

DATED: August 21, 2013

Documents

Roxbury Complaint