GALICKI et al v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
389
OPINION. Signed by Judge Julien Xavier Neals on 3/13/2023. (lag, )
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 6743
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ZACHARY GALICKI, eta!.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 14-169 (JXN)(JSA)
V.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, el al,,
Defendants.
GW CAR SERVICE, LLC, et al.,
OPINION
Plaintiffs,
V.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ef al.
Defendants.
NEALS, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Robert Cohen, Joan Cohen, and Victor
Cataldo's (collectively "Plaintiffs"), motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. (ECF No. 367.) Defendant Port Authority of New York & New Jersey filed an
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion (ECF Nos. 368), in which Defendants William Baroni, and David
Wildstein joined (ECF Nos. 370, 371), and Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support (ECF No.
369).1 The Court carefully considered the parties' submissions and heard oral argument on March
' Defendant Port Authority and Plaintiffs were granted leave to file sur-replies addressing (1) the Supreme Court's
recent decision in TramUniofi LLC v. Rafnif'ez, 141 S.Ct 2190 (2021) ("TransUnion") and its purported impact on
class certification; and (2) N.J.S.A. 32;1" 154.2c and its purported impact and p!amtiffs^ proposed use ofE-Z Pass
data. (ECF Nos. 375,379.) Defendants argue that the Supreme Court's recent decision in TransUmon LLC v. Ramirez,
141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021) precludes class certification based on the holding that standing requires a recognized harm.
Defendants further argue that the proposed class includes those who crossed the bridge that were not delayed and thus
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 6744
1, 2023 (ECF No. 385), pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated herein. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification (ECF No. 367) is DENIED without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND2
This civil class action arises from allegations that from September 9, 2013 through
September 13, 2013, Defendants improperly caused the closure of multiple lanes of travel, toll
booths, and toll plazas for the George Washington Bridge ("GWB") from the Borough of Fort Lee,
New Jersey into New York with the purpose of obstructing and creating traffic for political
retribution. (See generally, ECF No. 127, Second Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint
("SAG").) Plaintiffs claim that the lane closures, extreme traffic and delays caused commuters to
be stuck in extreme traffic delays, to lose time, to lose gas, and to pay tolls to access the GWB
under false pretenses without receiving the benefit for which said tolls were paid. (SAG ^ 256.)
Plaintiffs bring claims against various defendants for alleged damages related to the
closures. Those claims were consolidated 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.
Plaintiffs propose to represent "[a]ll persons who experienced traffic delays on September
9,2013, September 10,2013, September 11,2013, September 12,2013 and/or September 13,2013
not harmed. Plaintiffs dismiss this argument by asserting such members are not included in the class and thus such
issue is of no moment. (SeeECf No. 327 at l-2;ECFNo. 379 at 1-3.)
2 The Court only sets forth the background necessary to decide the instant motion for class certification.
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 6745
when they accessed the GWB from the Fort Lee Access Lanes and toll booth number 24 and
crossed the bridge from New Jersey to New York." (ECF No. 367-1 at 20-21.) Plaintiffs seek
certification of two subclasses:
(1) class members who operated a vehicle that experienced traffic delays accessing the
GWB from the Fort Lee Access Lanes and toll booth number 24 on September 9,
2013, September 10, 2013, September 11, 2013, September 12, 2013 and/or
September 13, 2013; and
(2) class members who were passengers In vehicles that experienced traffic delays
accessing the GWB from the Fort Lee Access Lanes and toll booth 24 on September
9, 2013, September 10, 2013, September 11, 2013, September 12, 2013 and/or
September 13, 2013.
(M. at 21.)
The Law Offices ofRosemarie Arnold filed this class action on January 9, 2014, on behalf
of Plaintiffs Zachary Galickl, Joy Galicki, Eli Galicki, Robert Arnold, Kim Joscelyn, Elizabeth
Psaltos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendants State ofNew
Jersey, Governor Christopher Christie, Bridget Anne Kelly, the Port Authority of New York &
New Jersey, Bill Baroni, and David Wildstein. (ECF No. 1 .)
Separately, on January 13, 2014, the Epstein Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey
Superior Court on behalf of Plaintiffs GW Car Service, LLC, Lime Taxi, LLC, PaUsades
Enterprises LLC, Fort Lee Car Service LLC, Vans R Us, Bergen Transportation Services, Inc.,
Robert Cohen, Joan Cohen, and Victor Cataldo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against the State of New Jersey, Chris Christie for Governor, Inc., David Wildstein, Bill
Baroni, Bridget Anne Kelty, Michael Drewniak, and Bill Stepien. (See ECF No. 1-1 in Civil Action
14-1319.) On February 28,2014, the State of New Jersey and Michael Drewniak removed the case
to the United States District. (See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 in Civil Action No. 14-1319.)
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 6746
This action was consolidated with Civil Action No. 14-1319 on August 19,2014 (seeECf
Nos. 57, 58) and on October 6,2014, the Epstein Law Firm was appointed as interim class counsel.
(ECFNos.66,67).
After protracted motion practice regarding the adequacy of Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaints (see ECF Nos. 123, 124,183,184,263, 264), the surviving claims against Defendants
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (the "Port Authority"), David WUdstein ("Wildstein"),
and Bill Baroni ("Baroni") (collectively, "Defendants") in the SAG are as follows: Count One;
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wildstein, Barom, and Kelly, (SAG ^ 290-311); Count
Two: Governmental Responsibility pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Port Authority, (SAG ^
312-19); Count Four: NJ.S.A. § 10:6-1 ef seq.. New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA") against
Wildstein, Baroni, and Kelly, (SAG ^ 374-94); Count Five: Governmental Responsibility
pursuant to the NJCRA against Port Authority, (SAG ^ 395-408); and Count Six: Common Law
Civil Conspiracy against all Defendants, (SAG ^ 409-25).
On July 6, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and (b)(3). (ECF No. 367.) Port Authority filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 368),
in which Defendants Baroni (ECF No. 370) and Wildstein (ECF No. 371) joined, and Plaintiffs
replied in further support (ECF No. 369).4
The motion is now ripe for resolution.5
3 Defendants Bill Stepien Michael Drewniak, Chris Christie for Governor, Inc. and the State of New Jersey were
dismissed from this case. (i'eeECFNos. 129, 220,264, 319.) Defendant Bridget Anne Kelly has yet to appear in this
litigation and the Court entered default against her on May 4, 2015.
4 Defendant Port Authority and Plaintiffs were granted leave to file sur-replies addressing (1) the Supreme Court's
recent decision in TrcnisUmon LLC v. Ramif'ez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021) ("TransUnion") and its purported impact on
class certification; and (2) N.J.S.A. 32:1- 154.2c and its purported impact and plaintiffs' proposed use ofE-Z Pass
data. (ECFNos. 375, 379.)
5 The parties agreed to bifurcated discovery, limiting Phase One to class discovery before the second phase merits
discovery. (ECF Nos. 244-246.) Phase One fact discovery closed on June 15, 2018, as confirmed by counsel during
oral argument on March 1, 2023 (ECF No. 385.)
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 6747
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Class action lawsuits are "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and
on behalf of the individual named parties only." Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33,
(2013) (quoting Califcmo v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)). To invoke this exception, a
plaintiff must satisfy all four requirements of Rule 23 (a) and show that the action can be
maintained under at least one of the three subsections of Rule 23(b). Marcus v. BMW of N. Am.,
LLC, 687 F.3d 583, 590 (3d Ch\ 2012). Under Rule 23(a), a class may be certified only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable
[(numerosity)]; (2) there are questions of law or fact contmon to the classes
[(commonality)]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defenses of the class [(typicality)J; and (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [(adequacy)].
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If these four requirements are satisfied, a plaintiff must show that at least
one subsection of Rule 23(b) is met.
Because Plaintiffs here seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must find "that
the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). These requirements are
known as predominance and superiority. In re Constar Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig., 585 F.3d 774, 780 (3d
Cir. 2009). In addition to these explicit requirements, "[a] plaintiff seeking certification of a Rule
23(b)(3) class must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is ascertainable." Byrd
v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154, 163 (3d Cir. 2015), cis amended (Apr. 28, 2015),
A party seeking class certification bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that all the necessary requirements have been fulfilled. Byrd, 784
F. 3d at 163 (citation omitted). A court evaluating a motion for class certification is obligated to
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6748
probe behind the pleadings when necessary and conduct a "rigorous analysis" in order to determine
whether the certification requirements are satisfied. Comcasf Corp., 569 U.S. at 33; In re
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litlg., 552 F.3d 305, 309 (3d Cir.2008), as amended ^ (Jan. 16, 2009).
III. DISCUSSION
Prior to engaging in the Rule 23 analysis, the Court must first determine "whether
Plaintiffs' proposed class is 'readily ascertainable based on objective criteria.'" Poliak v. Portfolio
Recovery Assocs., LLC, 285 F. Snpp. 3d 812, 840 (D.N.J. 2018) (citing Agostmo v. Quest
Diagnostics Inc., 256 F.R.D. 437, 478 (D.N.J. 2009)).
Ascertainability
"The ascertainability inquiry is two-fold, requiring a plaintiff to show that: (1) the class is
'defined with reference to objective criteria'; and (2) there is 'a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class
definition.'" Byrd, 784 F.3d at 163 (quoting Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349, 353
(3d Cir.2013). In order to determine whether a proposed class is ascertalnable, the Court must
engage in a two-part analysis. Pollak, 285 F. Supp. 3d at 841. First, the Court must determine
whether the defined class specifies "a particular group that was harmed during a particular time
frame, in a particular location, in a particular way. Id. (quoting Rowe v. E.I. Dupont De Nemonrs
& Co., 262 F.R.D. 451, 455 (D.NJ. 2009)). Second, the Court must be able to ascertain the class's
membership in an objective manner. Id. Significantly, in demonstrating ascertainability, a plaintiff
need not identify eveiy class member at the class certification stage; instead a plaintiff is required
to show that "class members can be identified." Byrd, 784 F.3d at 163 (citation omitted) (emphasis
in original). Critically, it is not enough for Plaintiffs merely to "propose [such] a method" instead,
they must also provide "evidentiary support that the method will be successful." Carrera v. Bayer
Case 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA Document 389 Filed 03/13/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 6749
Corp., 727 F.3d 300, 306 (3d Cir. 2013). If, however, "class members are impossible to identify
without extensive and individualized fact-finding or
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?