Joseph Samost v. Stephen Samost, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: CHAGARES, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6. Judge: RENDELL Authoring.

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 15-1284

JOSEPH SAMOST,
Appellant
v.
STEPHEN D. SAMOST; DEVEL LLC;
CENTENNIAL LAND & DEVELOPMENT CORP.

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(District Court No.: 1:13-cv-06886)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on November 13, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, RENDELL, and BARRY, Circuit Judges

1

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

(Opinion filed: February 12, 2016)

O P I N I O N*

RENDELL, Circuit Judge:
This is the latest chapter in a decades-long, intra-family saga concerning the
ownership and maintenance of Centennial Lake, which is a man-made lake formed by a
dam. Joseph Samost brings suit against his son Stephen Samost and two companies
controlled by Stephen Samost—namely, Centennial Land and Development Corp.
(“CLDC”) and Devel, LLC (“Devel”)—(collectively, “Defendants”) claiming that they
have failed to honor their responsibilities under an earlier settlement agreement by failing
to repair and maintain the dam on Centennial Lake. The District Court granted summary
judgment for Defendants on all claims. The District Court’s analysis, however, did not
address all of the claims asserted by Joseph Samost. We will therefore vacate as to the
unaddressed claims and remand for further proceedings. We will affirm the dismissal of
the claim addressed by the District Court—specifically the claim in which Joseph Samost
asserts Defendants must indemnify him for liability he incurred because of a lack of
maintenance on the dam during the time in which he owned it.
I. Background

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7
does not constitute binding precedent.
2

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

Because we write primarily for the parties, we will not recount the background
facts of this drawn-out dispute in detail. This dispute primarily concerns an effort by
Joseph Samost to enforce the terms of a 2001 Consent Order between himself and
Defendants. That Consent Order, which implemented a settlement-in-principle between
the parties, awarded the properties surrounding Centennial Lake to Defendants but also
imposed on Defendants the “cost of repairing and improving the Centennial Lake dam
and embankments.” See App. at 224.1
Joseph Samost asserts that he has been damaged because Defendants have not
repaired the Centennial Lake Dam. In particular, he asserts that he has been found liable
in a state court action to two parties: (1) the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (“NJDEP”); and (2) the “Centennial Pines Club,” a homeowner association on
the lake. His liability to the NJDEP represents 45 percent of a larger judgment in favor of
the NJDEP. His apportioned amount—45 percent—was premised on his owning the dam
and lake from 1972 until the entry of the Consent Order in 2001. See Brief of Appellant
at 14; App. at 357 (“For purposes of apportionment, Joseph Samost owned the dam, lake
and lakebed from at least 1972 through August 31, 2001.”). His liability to the Centennial
Pines Club, according to him, was premised on the lack of repairs on the dam after the
entry of the Consent Order in 2001.
Joseph Samost seeks declaratory relief such that, under that 2001 Consent Order,
Stephen Samost, CLDC, and Devel must indemnify him for both of these liabilities. He

1

This order was modified in 2004 to make clear that CLDC and Devel, rather than
Stephen Samost personally, would pay the maintenance on the dam. See App. at 261.
3

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

also seeks specific performance of the Consent Order, damages for breach of contract,
damages for unjust enrichment, damages for tortious interference with contract, and
judgment awarding equitable subrogation of his liabilities such that Defendants must pay
them.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court prior
to any discovery. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
in its entirety and denied Joseph Samost’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
The District Court provided its analysis and ruling in open court on the record, finding
that “[t]here is no evidence in the record that the parties to the Samost 1 settlement agreed
that Stephen Samost would indemni[f]y Joseph Samost for any costs associated with
the—with the Centennial Pines property. Accordingly, Stephen is not legally responsible
for Joseph’s 45 percent liability of the state court judgment.” App. at 26:24-27:3.
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1332. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district
court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott
Ltd., 584 F.3d 575, 580 (3d Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). When a district court grants summary judgment, it must provide “an
explanation sufficient to permit the parties and this court to understand the legal premise
for the court’s order.” Vadino v. A. Valey Eng’rs, 903 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir. 1990).
4

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 5

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

We exercise plenary review over a court’s interpretation of a consent order.
Holland v. N.J. Dep’t of Corrs., 246 F.3d 267, 277 (3d Cir. 2001). Because a consent
order “embodies the agreement of the parties,” id., we construe the consent essentially as
we would a contract. See United States v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 236-37
(1975) (“[S]ince consent decrees and orders have many of the attributes of ordinary
contracts, they should be construed basically as contracts . . . .”).
III. Discussion
We will affirm the District Court’s finding that Joseph Samost is not entitled to
indemnification for any liability he incurred for the lack of maintenance prior to the entry
of the Consent Order which transferred ownership of the dam to Defendants—that is, we
affirm the finding that Joseph Samost is not entitled to indemnification for the 45 percent
of the total liability assessed to him in the NJDEP judgment. However, not every claim
asserted by Joseph Samost is premised on the theory that he is entitled to indemnification
for liability he incurred because of a lack of maintenance during his ownership of the
dam. He asserts that he is entitled to indemnification for his liability to the Centennial
Pines Club which, according to him, he incurred because of Defendants’ lack of repairs
after they acquired ownership under the 2001 Consent Order. The District Court did not
adequately address this claim, as its explanation appears to pertain only to the liability
incurred by Joseph Samost for the lack of maintenance during the time he owned the
dam—that is, the 45 percent liability he was apportioned under the NJDEP judgment.
Joseph Samost brings several other claims that were likewise not addressed in the
analysis of the District Court. See App. at 420-24 (Complaint of Joseph Samost including
5

Case: 15-1284

Document: 003112206320

Page: 6

Date Filed: 02/12/2016

claims for specific performance, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious
interference with contract, and equitable subrogation). We cannot review the District
Court’s summary judgment dismissing these unaddressed claims, as we lack an
“explanation sufficient to permit the parties and this court to understand the legal premise
for the court’s order.” Vadino, 903 F.2d at 259. We will therefore vacate and remand with
respect to the unaddressed claims.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the decision of the District Court with
respect to Joseph Samost’s claims for indemnity for the 45 percent of the NJDEP
judgment, and vacate and remand as to his other claims.

6