ARGEN et al v. KESSLER et al

Filing 109

LETTER OPINION & ORDER that a new Motion for Summary Judgment may be filed by the defendant on or before 11/10/2022. Plaintiff may oppose (and cross-move if it desires) on or before 11/21/2022. Reply may be filed on or before 12/2/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre on 10/18/2022. (dam)

Case 2:18-cv-00963-SDW-LDW Document 109 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2220

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Chambers of

Martin Luther King Federal Building
& U.S. Courthouse
50 Walnut Street
Newark, NJ 07101
[phone]

Leda Dunn Wettre

United States Magistrate Judge

October 18, 2022
To:

All counsel of record
LETTER OPINION & ORDER
RE:

Paul Argen, et al. v. Hon. David Katz
Civil Action No. 18-cv-963-SDW-LDW

Dear Counsel:
This matter is before the Court to enter a schedule according to which the District Court
will “evaluate [plaintiff] Argen’s First Amendment claim on its merits,” consistent with the Third
Circuit’s Opinion of August 16, 2022. Argen v. Att’y Gen. New Jersey, No. 21-2571, 2022 WL
3369109, at *6 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2022). Familiarity with that decision and the procedural history
of this case is presumed. Briefly, in remanding, the Third Circuit noted that, while it did not view
abstention as appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the parties had made
arguments in their cross-motions for summary judgment as to the merits of plaintiff Argen’s First
Amendment claim that should be addressed. See Argen, 2022 WL 3369109, at *6.
The Court has the inherent power to manage its docket. See Eash v. Riggins Trucking
Inc., 757 F.2d 557, 567 (3d Cir. 1985). Consistent with that inherent power and the objective
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
this action, the Court views the most appropriate course of action, consistent with the Circuit’s
remand for further proceedings, to be the presentation by summary judgment of the First
Amendment merits arguments that the Court did not reach in its prior summary judgment Opinion
due to abstention. (See ECF No. 97).
Given that more than eighteen months have passed since those arguments were previously
briefed, and given the need to update the briefs for any additional precedent that has issued since
the matter was brought before the Court in the Spring of 2021, and to integrate into the briefing
the procedural history that has transpired since then, and to remove the abstention arguments that
have been adjudicated, a new motion for summary judgment may be filed by the defendant on or
before November 10, 2022. Plaintiff may oppose (and cross-move if it desires) on or before
November 21, 2022. Reply may be filed on or before December 2, 2022.
Although the plaintiff requested that the previous motions simply be reinstated, this would
not be consistent with the need to update the law, remove abstention arguments that are no longer

Case 2:18-cv-00963-SDW-LDW Document 109 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2221

pertinent, and account for the procedural history since the motions were previously briefed.
Therefore, in the exercise of its inherent discretion to manage its docket, the Court denies
plaintiff’s request in that regard. (See ECF No. 106).
Plaintiff further seeks to amend its Complaint to name a new plaintiff. (See id.). Putting
aside the propriety on the merits of adding a new party years after the underlying factual record
has closed, this is not an appropriate application at this time due to the need to re-present the
dispositive issues to the Court consistent with the Circuit’s Opinion. Furthermore, plaintiff makes
no argument that the addition of a new party would alter the merits of the First Amendment
argument in any way, rendering the proposed motion to amend the Complaint unrelated to the
current merits briefing.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of October 2022.

Orig: Clerk
cc:
Counsel of Record

s/ Leda Dunn Wettre
Hon. Leda Dunn Wettre
United States Magistrate Judge

2