WILLOW STREET PROPERTIES, LLC v. BOROUGH OF WOOD-RIDGE et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 9/19/22. (gh, )
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 307
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLOW STREET PROPERTIES, LLC,
Civ. No. 2:22-CV-02009-WJM-IRA
BOROUGH OF WOOD-RIDGE, BOROUGH
COUNCIL OF WOOD-RIDGE, NEGLIA
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, MICHAEL
NEGLIA AND JOHN DOES 1-10,
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.C.
This matter arises out of a property dispute between plaintiff Willow Street
Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Borough of Wood-Ridge (the “Borough”),
Borough Council of Wood-Ridge (the “Council”), Neglia Engineering Associates (“Neglia
Engineering”), and Michael Neglia (“Neglia” and, collectively, “Defendants”). Before the
Court is the Borough and Borough Council’s (hereinafter, the “Borough Defendants”)
motion (the “Motion”) for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
For the reasons set forth below, the Borough Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff is a New Jersey limited liability company with a principal place of business
located at 6 Shawn Court, Wayne, NJ. (Compl. ¶ 1). Plaintiff owns a parcel of land within
the Borough located at 12 Willow Street which includes a tract of undeveloped grass
identified by Plaintiff as the “Willow Street Extension.” Id. at ¶¶ 1, 8. The Willow Street
Extension lies between, and separates, the back of the Borough’s Department of Public
Works’ (“DPW”) garage and the structures built on Plaintiff’s lot. Id. at ¶ 13.
The Willow Street Extension was acquired by Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest,
Willow Properties, from the Borough in 1990 for $19,000 in a transaction that was recorded
by the Bergen County Clerk. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Following a conversion from a partnership to
a limited liability company, the name of the owner of 12 Willow Street, including the
Willow Street Extension, changed from Willow Properties to Plaintiff Willow Street
Properties, LLC. Id. at ¶ 12. This ownership change was documented in a December 12,
2010 Confirmatory Deed which was also recorded by the Bergen County Clerk. Id.
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 308
In September 2020, Plaintiff became aware that the Borough had constructed a
driveway/parking space to serve as a rear access point to the DPW garage over a portion
of the Willow Street Extension. Id. Upon making this discovery, Plaintiff, through counsel,
notified the Borough that it was trespassing on its property and requested that the Borough
return the Willow Street Extension to its original, undeveloped state. Id. at ¶ 14. This began
a monthslong exchange between Plaintiff and the Borough in which the parties
unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a resolution with respect to the Willow Street
Extension. Notwithstanding the result of a pre-construction survey, the Borough eventually
acknowledged both Plaintiff’s ownership of the Willow Street Extension and that the
driveway was constructed upon a portion thereof. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16, 23-25. Rather than return
the property to its original condition, however, the Borough repeatedly sought an easement
from Plaintiff allowing for continued use of the driveway, which Plaintiff declined to give.
Id. at ¶¶ 17-21, 26-28.
On December 15, 2021, after approximately 15 months of fruitless negotiations, the
Borough Council passed Resolution 146-2021, which seeks, in part, to acquire a portion of
12 Willow Street by eminent domain. Id. at ¶ 29-30.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) provides for the
dismissal of a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The movant bears the burden of showing that no claim
has been stated. Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In deciding a
motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), “all allegations in the complaint must be accepted
as true, and the plaintiff must be given the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn
therefrom.” Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court need not
accept as true “legal conclusions,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court is ordinarily limited to the
facts as alleged in the complaint, the exhibits attached thereto, and matters of public record.
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1996 (3d Cir. 1993).
The Court may, however, look outside the pleadings and consider “document[s] integral to
or explicitly relied upon in the complaint” or any “undisputedly authentic document that a
defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on
the document.” In re Asbestos Prod. Liability Litig. (No. VI), 822 F.3d 125, 134 n.7 (3d
To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 309
The Borough Defendants seek to dismiss Counts I, III, and V for violations of the
Fifth, Fourteenth, and First Amendments of the United States Constitution, respectively,
as well as Counts VII and IX for ejectment and conversion, respectively, under New Jersey
law. The Court will address each claim in turn. Before turning to the merits of the
challenged claims, however, the Court first addresses the Borough Defendants’ argument
that Plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are timebarred.
Statute of Limitations
Claims for constitutional violations arising in New Jersey and brought pursuant to
§ 1983 are subject to the state’s two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal injury
actions. Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010). The statute of
limitations begins to run for such claims when the constitutional violation occurs and a
plaintiff suffers damages as a result thereof such that the plaintiff has “a complete and
present cause of action.” Id. (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007)). In New
Jersey, however, “a statute of limitations can be tolled based upon equitable principles,
including the discovery rule,” which postpones the accrual of a claim until “the injured
party discovers, or by exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have
discovered, that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and, as such, should ordinarily
be raised in a defendant’s answer to a complaint, not in a motion to dismiss. Schmidt v.
Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). Nonetheless, the Court may dismiss a claim on
statute of limitations grounds on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but “only when the statute of
limitations defense is apparent on the face of the complaint.” Wisniewski v. Fisher, 857
F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir. 2017). Thus, where the complaint “does not reveal when the
limitations period began to run . . . the statute of limitations cannot justify Rule 12
dismissal.” Barefoot Arhcitect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 835 (3d Cir. 2011). Moreover,
before ordering a statute of limitations dismissal, the Court must consider the potential
applicability of tolling doctrines that might save an otherwise untimely claim. Id. at 15758. To that end, the Court notes that a plaintiff “is not required to plead around an
affirmative defense,” and that dismissal is inappropriate unless it is clear from the facts
alleged in the complaint that any such tolling doctrines do not apply. Skolas, 770 F.3d at
Here, Plaintiff alleges two distinct constitutional injuries: (1) retaliation in violation
of the First Amendment through the exercise of the Borough’s eminent domain power; and
(2) a taking of a portion of the Willow Street Extension without just compensation in
violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the former, there is no dispute that the alleged
unconstitutional retaliation occurred on December 15, 2021, only approximately four
months before the commencement of this action and thus well within the two-year
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 310
With respect to the latter, however, the Borough Defendants maintain that
construction of the driveway was completed no later than January 16, 2020, that it was
unreasonable for Plaintiff to have failed to discover the existence of the driveway until
September 2020, and that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims with respect thereto are therefore
untimely. The Court disagrees for two reasons. First, there is nothing in Plaintiff’s
complaint that indicates when construction of the driveway began or was completed, and
there is thus nothing in the record which the Court may properly consider that indicates
when the statute of limitations began to run with respect to Plaintiff’s Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims.1 Second, even if the Court were to assume that construction of the
driveway was in fact completed by January 16, 2020, Plaintiff clearly alleges that it did not
become aware of its existence, and the resulting taking of its property, until September
2020, and it is not evident from the face of the complaint that the discovery rule could not
properly save Plaintiff’s claims. The reasonableness of Plaintiff’s delayed discovery of the
driveway in view of the unique facts of this case and within the context of the global
COVID-19 pandemic is a fact intensive inquiry inappropriate on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. See Warrick v. N.J. Office of Attorney General, No. 20-14274 (MAS) (TJB), 2022
WL 1763855, at *6 (D.N.J. May 31, 2022) (“At bottom when, when even a possibility of
tolling applies, a complaint will not give rise to a statute-of-limitations defense that is ripe
for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”).
Accordingly, the Court finds that, for purposes of the instant Motion, Plaintiff’s
constitutional claims are timely and the Court considers the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
Count I – Violation of Takings Clause Under the Fifth Amendment
Count I of the Complaint asserts a claim for an unlawful taking in violation of the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Takings Clause provides that “private
property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const.
amend. V. In determining whether an unconstitutional taking has occurred, the Court asks
three questions: (1) was there a taking?; (2) was that taking for public use?; and (3) did the
claimant receive just compensation. Park Restoration, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch. (In re
Trustees of Conneaut Lake Park, Inc.), 855 F.3d 519, 525 (3d Cir. 2017). There is no
dispute in this case that the driveway and rear access point to the DPW garage is a public
use of property and that Plaintiff has not yet been justly compensated for any taking thereof.
Instead, the Borough Defendants appear to argue that there has not been a taking at all or,
even if there was a taking, Plaintiff has not suffered any damages because there is a
The Borough Defendants reference certain exhibits attached to their Motion which they argue
establish that the driveway was completed by January 16, 2020. These documents, however, are
neither referenced in nor integral to the Complaint, are not public records, or undisputedly
authentic documents on which Plaintiff’s claims are based. As such, the Court does not consider
them in ruling on the Motion.
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 311
statutorily prescribed process by which just compensation may ultimately be paid. Both
arguments are unpersuasive.
First, the Complaint clearly and plausibly alleges an unconstitutional taking of
Plaintiff’s property. There is no dispute that Plaintiff owns the Willow Street Extension
and that the Borough paved over a portion thereof in order to install a rear driveway and
access point to its adjoining DPW garage. Plaintiff thus alleges the “paradigmatic taking”
requiring just compensation: “direct government appropriation or physical invasion of
private property.” Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005). Although the
Borough Defendants emphasize that the installation of the driveway resulted in neither the
deprivation of “all economically viable uses of the property” nor a “diminution in present
value of the property,” these factors are simply irrelevant because any such physical
invasion of property constitutes a “per se taking, without regard to other factors.” Horne v.
Dep’t of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350, 360 (2015). Indeed, “[w]hen the government physically
takes possession of an interest in property . . . it has a categorical duty to compensate the
former owner, regardless of whether the interest that is taken constitutes an entire parcel or
merely a part thereof.” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,
535 U.S. 302, 321 (2002).
Second, neither the precise measure of just compensation nor the availability of
post-taking mechanisms for receiving such just compensation has any bearing on the
question before the Court: whether Plaintiff has properly stated a claim for an
unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. On this point, the Supreme
Court has recently made clear that “[t]he Fifth Amendment right to full compensation arises
at the time of the taking, regardless of post-taking remedies that may be available to the
property owner.” Knick v. Twp. of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2170 (2019). In other words, the
statutorily prescribed process described by Plaintiff may set forth the appropriate
procedures to constitutionally exercise the state’s eminent domain power, but that is a limit
on the state, it does not circumscribe Plaintiff’s right, which rests upon the Fifth
Amendment itself, to seek just compensation in federal court. Id. at 2170-71.
Accordingly, the Borough Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Count I is DENIED.
Count III – Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Count III broadly alleges that Plaintiff’s property was taken without notice or
compensation in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although the Complaint itself is not clear whether this due process claim is procedural,
substantive, or both, or whether the source of the violation was the Borough’s initial taking
of the property or the Council’s subsequent resolution authorizing eminent domain
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 312
procedures with respect thereto, the parties limit their arguments to a substantive due
process analysis of the initial taking. As such, the Court will evaluate only this limited
claim and considers any other potentially available theories or claims waived. See Millner
v. Bayada Nurses, Inc., CIV. 05-3164, 2006 WL 231993, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2006)
(“This Court is under no obligation to raise legal arguments overlooked or ignored by the
The Third Circuit has noted that “two very different threads make up the fabric of
substantive due process: substantive due process relating to legislative action and
substantive due process relating to non-legislative action.” Newark Cab. Ass’n v. City of
Newark, 901 F.3d 146, 155 (3d Cir. 2018). Where, as here, a substantive due process claim
is premised on non-legislative action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has “a property
interest protected by the substantive due process clause”; and (2) “the government’s
deprivation of that protected interest shocks the conscience.” Joey’s Auto Repair & Body
Shop v. Fayette Cnty., 785 F. App’x 46, 49 (3d Cir. 2019).
Here, because this case involves an ownership interest in real property, it is clear
that Plaintiff has a fundamental property interest protected by the substantive due process
clause. See Nicholas v. Penn. State Univ., 227 F.3d 133, 141 (3d Cir. 2000). The only
question, therefore, is whether the Borough’s actions sufficiently “shock the conscience”
such that it violated Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights. The Court concludes they do
“The ‘shocks the conscience’ standard encompasses only the most egregious
official conduct.” Joey’s Auto Repair, 785 F. App’x at 50. Though the test is “not precise,”
it has generally been limited to allegations of “self-dealing, intentional interference with
constitutionally protected activities, corruption, and intentional bias.” Umdasch Real
Estate USA, Ltd. v. Borough of Wallington, No. 2:20-cv-16346, 2021 WL 1050230, at *2
(D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2021) (citing Eichenlaub v. Twp. of Indiana, 385 F.3d 274, 285 (3d Cir.
2004)). Here, no such egregious conduct or motivations are alleged in the Complaint. To
the extent Plaintiff argues that interference with its fundamental constitutional right to use
and enjoy its property is sufficiently “egregious,” the Third Circuit has already rejected
this argument where, as here, no separately protected constitutional right is implicated by
the government’s conduct. See Tucker Indus. Liquid Coatings, Inc. v. Borough of East
Berlin, 656 F. App’x 1, 6 (3d Cir. 2016) (rejecting argument that zoning ordinance which
interfered with the use and enjoyment of property “shocked the conscience” in the absence
of some other, separately protected constitutional right being implicated or targeted
Plaintiff is, of course, correct that it has a constitutionally protected right to be free from an
unlawful taking of its real property. That right, however, rests upon the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment rather than a generalized notion of substantive due process. See Fisher v. Pratt, CV
19-273 (NLH/KMW), 2020 WL 773262, at *9 n.12 (D.N.J. Feb. 18, 2020) (“[W]here a particular
Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort
of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 313
Accordingly, the Borough Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Count III is
Count 5 – Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment
Count 5 of the Complaint alleges that the Borough retaliated against Plaintiff by
pursuing condemnation of the paved area through eminent domain after negotiations
ceased. To successfully plead a First Amendment retaliation claim, Plaintiff must allege:
“that (1) [it] engaged in ‘constitutionally protected conduct,’ (2) the defendant engaged in
‘retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his
constitutional rights,’ and (3) ‘a causal link [existed] between the constitutionally protected
conduct and the retaliatory action.’” Baloga v. Pittston Area School District, 927 F.3d 742,
752 (3d Cir. 2019).
Here, even if Plaintiff’s rejection of the Borough Defendants’ offers to resolve the
dispute without litigation was protected speech under the First Amendment, Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently allege that passage of Resolution 146-2021 was a “retaliatory action”
by the Borough Defendants. As the Borough Defendants point out, New Jersey law sets
forth a detailed process that condemning authorities must follow before exercising their
eminent domain power. See N.J.S.A. 20:3-6. The Complaint alleges that after more than a
full year of unsuccessful negotiations regarding the possibility of an easement in the
Borough’s favor, the Borough Council passed the Resolution initiating the eminent domain
process. To that end, the Resolution merely authorizes appropriate Borough officials to (1)
begin pre-litigation functions related to Plaintiff’s 12 Willow Street property; (2) conduct
the necessary surveys and studies with respect thereto; and (3) engage in bona-fide
negotiations to attempt to resolve the parties’ dispute without the need for litigation as
prescribed by New Jersey law. (Schepis Decl., Exhibit M.).3 Simply put, without more, the
Court will not infer an impermissibly retaliatory motive with respect to the Borough
Defendants’ exercise of a constitutionally reserved power exercised in accordance with
statutorily prescribed procedures in order to resolve an ongoing property dispute. See
Albanian Associated Fund v. Twp. of Wayne, Civ. A. 06-CV-3217PGS, 2007 WL 2904194,
at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 1, 2007) (“[A] reviewing court will not upset a municipality's decision
to use its eminent domain power in the absence of an affirmative showing of fraud, bad
faith or manifest abuse.” (quoting Twp. of W. Orange v. 769 Associates, L.L.C., 800 A.2d
process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266,
Though not attached to the Complaint, the Court finds that the Resolution is an undisputedly
authentic document on which Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is based, and therefore
may be properly considered in ruling on the Borough Defendants’ Motion.
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 314
86, 90 (N.J. 2002))). To hold otherwise would render every attempt to provide a postdeprivation remedy to an unsatisfied property owner for an unlawful taking a violation of
the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the Borough Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Counts V is GRANTED.
Counts VII and IX: Ejectment and Conversion
Finally, the Borough Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims for
conversion and ejectment. In New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1 replaced the common law
action of ejectment, providing a legal remedy to “[a]ny person claiming the right of
possession of real property in the possession of another, or claiming title to such real
property.” N.J.S.A. 2A:35-1; see J & M Land Co. v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 166 N.J. 493,
520 (2001). Where, as here, the dispute between a “person claiming the right of possession
of real property” or title thereto and a “person” in actual possession of such real property
is one between a private landowner and the government, however, an ejectment claim
appears indistinguishable from, and duplicative of, a takings claim. In other words, any
dispute over title or possession of the Willow Street Extension, and any remedy associated
therewith, that might be resolved through litigation of Plaintiff’s ejectment claim will be
subsumed within the litigation of the broader constitutional takings claim. See Blake
Gardens, LLC v. New Jersey, 309 F. Supp. 3d 240, 248 (D.N.J. 2018) (“It is wellrecognized that a court may dismiss a duplicative claim in a complaint.” (quoting Slimm v.
Bank of Am. Corp., Civ. No. 12-5846, 2013 WL 1867035, at *22 (D.N.J. May 2, 2013))).
Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff purports to challenge the propriety of the Resolution
through the ejectment claim, our review of a municipality’s decision to invoke its eminent
domain power is limited to questions of “bad faith, fraud, or manifest abuse,” none of which
have been plausibly alleged. See Albanian Associated Fund, 2007 WL 2904194, at *5.4
The Court also finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s conversion claim is warranted.
Under New Jersey law, the common law action of conversion is the “unauthorized
assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels
belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of an owner’s
rights.” Capital Health Sys., Inc. v. Veznedaroglu, 15-8288, 2017 WL 751855, at *10
(D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2017) (quoting Ricketti v. Barry, No. 13-6804, 2015 WL 1013547, at *8
(D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2015)). As such, “conversion only applies to tangible personal property.”
FMHUB, LLC v. MuniPlatform, LLC, CV 19-15595 (FLW), 2021 WL 1422873, at *9
Of course, in a constitutional challenge to a government taking, the Court must also ensure that
the property is being taken for “public use.” U.S. Const. amend V. As noted, however, the parties
do not dispute that the construction of a driveway and access point to the DPW garage constitutes
a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
Case 2:22-cv-02009-WJM-JRA Document 20 Filed 09/19/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 315
(D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2021). Here, because Plaintiff has alleged the invasion of an interest in
real, not personal, property by the Borough, it has failed to allege a plausible conversion
Accordingly, the Borough Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Counts VII and IX is
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
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?