GALICKI et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 147

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 10/26/2015. (nr, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ZACHARY GALICKI, et al.,

Civil Action No.: 14-169 (JLL)

Plaintiffs,

OPINION

V.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et at.,
Defendants.
GW CARE SERVICE, LLC, et a!.,
Plaintiffs,
V.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et at.,
Defendants.

LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of the United States of America’s Motion for
Permission to Intervene and For a Stay (“U.S. Mot.”). The Court decides this matter withou oral
t
argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants the United States’ motion in part, and denies it in part.
BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the closure of multiple lanes of traffic to the George Washington
Bridge from September 9, 2013 through September 13, 2013. Plaintiffs bring claims against
various defendants for alleged damages related to the closures. Those claims were consol
idated
and amended (“CAC”) on December 19, 2014. In February of 2015, various defendants moved
to dismiss the CAC. Upon requests from the parties, decision on the motions to dismiss was

adjourned until June 2015. On June 29, 2015, this Court dismissed the CAC, certain claims with
prejudice and certain without. (See ECF Nos. 123-124.) Plaintiffs were granted leave to file
a
Second Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint to cure the deficiencies in the claims
dismissed without prejudice. (See id.)

Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on August 6,

2015.

On April 23, 2015, a federal grand jury indicted two defendants in this civil case “for
their roles in allegedly deliberately causing ‘traffic problems in Fort Lee’ to punish Fort
Lee’s
mayor” (U.S. Mot. at 1.) Another defendant in this case, David Wildstein, has “pled guilty
for
his role in the same scheme and is awaiting sentencing.” (Id.) Because of the crimin
al case,
which is set for trial in March 2016, the United States seeks to intervene in this civil matter and
,
stay it until completion of the criminal case. (Id. at 1-2.)
Plaintiffs oppose the motion at this time, but acknowledge that “a stay may be
appropriate when this litigation reaches the discovery phase.” (Pis.’ Opp’n at 1.) Defend
ants
State of New Jersey and Michael Drewniak “take no position in response to the motion
,” and
“stand ready to submit a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on any schedule the Court
may
set, whether now or when the United States Attorney no longer seeks to stay this action.
” (ECF
No. 143 at 1-2.) Defendant William Baroni—one of the individual defendants who
has been
indicted in this matter—neither opposes nor joins in the motion, and also asserts that
he “expects
to file a meritorious motion to dismiss.” (ECF No. 144 at 1-2.) No other defend
ants submitted
anything in response to the United States’ motion.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs recognize the United States’ right to intervene
in the
2

matter, and do not oppose such intervention. (Pis.’ Opp’n at 9-10.) Therefore, the United States
motion to intervene is granted.
Plaintiffs, however, are opposed to a stay at this time—prior to the completion of the
pleadings. (Id, at 11.) Plaintiffs further argue that “{b]ecause the parties are likely many months
away from engaging in any form of discovery in the absence of a stay and the Government does
not assert or even suggest that allowing defendants to respond to plaintiffs’ Second Consolidated
Class Action Amended Complaint would adversely affect its criminal prosecution, the
Government’s claim of prejudice is illusory at this juncture.” (Id. at 12.) Furthermore, while
Plaintiffs recognize that a stay may be appropriate prior to discovery, they argue that they will be
prejudiced because the civil case will be unnecessarily delayed if completion of the pleading
phase must wait until completion of the criminal trial and potentially appeals. (Id.)
The crux of the United States’ motion is that discovery in this matter should not proceed.
Although the United States argues in reply that “an immediate stay would have the added benefit
of avoiding the threat of inconsistent judgments if the Court were to resolve motions to dismiss
in the Civil Case before issues raised by these motions relating to the criminal charges were fully
adjudicated in the Criminal Case” (U.S. Reply at 4) (internal quotations omitted), the United
States did not mention motions to dismiss in its moving brief. Aside from this argument being
first made in reply, the issue of future motion practice related to dismissing the complaint is
particularly relevant here where the Court has already considered the exact same issues raised
in
the amended complaint and issued rulings on these issues—less than five months ago.
At the time of the indictment of two of the defendants in April 2015, the prior motions to
dismiss were pending. The United States did not seek to intervene at that time to stay decision
3

on those motions. The United States now has not offered any explanation as to
why the Court’s
consideration of new motions to dismiss addressing the same issues as it
has previously
addressed (without intervention and objection by the United States) would
now prejudice the
Government or interfere with the criminal case.
The United States also argues in several places that a stay will benefit Plainti
ffs through
better development of the facts in the criminal case. (See U.S. Mot. at 10-11,
13; U.S. Reply at
5.) Regardless of the United States’ view, Plaintiffs argue that they believe they
will be harmed,
not benefitted, by a stay at this time.

Likewise, the United States raises issues regarding the

individual defendants that those defendants do not make themselves, and
are premature with
respect to discovery issues. In many, if not most, of the cases cited by the
United States in its
motion (see U.S. Mot. at 1-2), it was defendants moving to stay the
civil matter, not the
governmental body prosecuting them. Here, defendants have nether made
a motion to stay the
proceedings or joined in the United States’ motion.
The Court is not holding that the United States cannot prevail on a future motion
to stay
at a different stage of the proceedings (e.g., prior to commencement of discov
ery). But, to be
successful, the United States must support any such motion with a basis
that goes beyond mere
recitation of conclusory and broad legal arguments. The Court is cogniz
ant of the fact that the
United States had access to the prior motions to dismiss and this Court’
s Opinion on those
motions. If the United States believed that potential consideration of
those same issues a second
time was problematic, it had the ability to make specific arguments
for why a stay at this
particular moment is appropriate. It did not do so.

4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants the United States’ motion to intervene,

but denies its motion to stay the proceedings at this time.

The denial of a stay is without

prejudice to any future request to stay as the matter proceeds.

An appropriate Order

accompanies this Opinion.

DATED October

,

2015

—

JOSE L. LINARES
UZ1iTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5