WARREN et al v. FISHER et al
Filing
118
ORDER denying the 101 Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part and denying in part 106 Motion to Amend; denying 100 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 12/20/2013. (drw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
THREASTON WARREN, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action
No. 10-5343 (JBS/KMW)
v.
ORDER
ALBERT FISHER, III, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter having come before the Court on a motion for
reconsideration [Docket Item 101] and a motion to amend [Docket
Item 106] brought by Plaintiffs Threaston Warren, Jr., Marjorie
Warren, and Continental Aggregate Corp., LLC; and on the motion
for attorneys’ fees [Docket Item 100] brought by Defendants
Albert W. Fisher, III, Joseph J. Hannagan, Jr., and Robert
Howell; for the reasons stated in the Opinion of today’s date;
and for good cause shown;
IT IS this
20th
day of
December
, 2013 hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and
it further
ORDERED that the motion to amend is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part; amendment of Count 1 (class-of-one) and Count 2
(selective enforcement) is permitted on the grounds that
Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to unequal treatment related to
inspections of Plaintiffs’ property; amendment of Count 3
(conspiracy) is denied; amendment is permitted for claims
against Defendants in their official capacities, as the Court
makes no determination of whether Plaintiffs extinguished those
claims in their settlement with the Township of Quinton; and it
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall redact the proposed Third
Amended Complaint to eliminate proposed claims that are denied
above, and to present proposed claims that are granted above,
and file the Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is
DENIED.
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?