THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD et al v. THE CITY OF VINELAND et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying without prejudice 77 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/14/2020. (tf, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD
and DANA GERMAN-BUNTON, as
administrator ad-prosequendum
of THE ESTATE OF RICHARD
BARD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF VINELAND POLICE
OFFICER CHRISTOPHER PUGLISI,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
SOLOMON MORDECHAI RADNER
EXCOLO LAW PLLC
26700 LAHSER ROAD
SUITE 401
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48033
CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
LAW OFFICES OF CONRAD J. BENEDETTO
1233 HADDONFIELD-BERLIN ROAD
SUITE 1
VOORHEES, NJ 08043
On behalf of Plaintiffs
A. MICHAEL BARKER
TODD J. GELFAND
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES
LINWOOD GREENE
210 NEW ROAD
SUITE 12
LINWOOD, NJ 08221
On behalf of Defendant

1:17-cv-01452-NLH-AMD
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, this matter concerns claims by Plaintiff, Dana
German-Bunton, the mother of Richard Bard, the decedent, arising
out of the shooting death of Bard by Defendant City of Vineland
police officer Christopher Puglisi; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s third amended complaint asserts a
claim of excessive force against Puglisi in violation of the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and New Jersey Civil
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6–2(c) (Docket No. 51); 1 and
WHEREAS, currently pending is Puglisi’s motion for summary
judgment (Docket No. 77); but
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff filed a
motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney in this matter
(Docket No. 79); and
WHEREAS, in counsel’s motion he relates, “Throughout
litigation on this case, a significant breakdown of the attorney
client relationship has arisen making withdrawal of the
undersigned necessary.” (Docket No. 79 at 2); and
WHEREAS, counsel’s motion is set before the Magistrate
Judge, and a telephonic hearing on the motion is scheduled for
September 24, 2020 (Docket No. 80);
Therefore,

1

For a detailed recitation of the procedural history of this
case, see Docket No. 44.
2

IT IS on this

14th

day of

September

, 2020

ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [77]
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is
further
ORDERED that Court will provide further direction regarding
Defendant’s summary judgment motion after the Magistrate Judge
has resolved Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3