The only relevant reasons that defendants have advanced for dismissing the state law claims appear in a footnote of their brief, where they argue the applicability of statutory immunity. From the record now before the court, however, it is not possible to conclude that the defendants are entitled to rely on these immunities.
While the defendants cite to three New Jersey immunity provisions, N.J.S.A. 59:3-3, 59:3-8 and 59:3-10, in a footnote at page 60 of their brief, they have failed to set out with specificity the factual basis which entitles them to these immunities. Furthermore, even if it could be said that these provisions would otherwise be applicable, plaintiffs argue that they are superseded by N.J.S.A. 59:3-14, which states that the immunities shall not apply where the public official acted outside the scope of his employment or if his action constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct. Obviously, the question of the applicability of these immunity provisions involves disputed issues of fact and precludes this court from granting summary judgment on the state law claims at this time. The court, however, invites the defendants to renew their motion, should they so desire, and to accompany it with sufficient legal and factual background for the court to make an informed decision as to the application of the state law immunities. Should the defendants choose to renew their motion, they should address themselves with particularity to the import of Marley v. Palmyra Bar, 193 N.J. Super. 271, 473 A.2d 554 (Law Div. 1983) and other cases interpreting the scope of the immunity, whether the standard is an objective or subjective one, etc.
For all the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to the § 1983 claims and denied without prejudice as to the state law claims.
The court will enter the accompanying order. [EDITOR'S NOTE: The following court-provided text does not appear at this cite in 602 F. Supp.]
This matter having come before the court on a motion by plaintiffs for an order dropping the State of New Jersey, Division of Gaming Enforcement from this action and on a motion by the defendants for an order dismissing the complaints and/or granting summary judgment, and the court, having read and considered the submissions on behalf of all parties, and having heard oral argument, and for good cause shown;
It is, this 14th day of February, 1985, hereby ORDERED that:
(1) the State of New Jersey, Division of Gaming Enforcement, be dismissed from the action pursuant to F.R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2);
(2) defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to the § 1983 claims against them; and
(3) defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied without prejudice as to state law claims for tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and malicious interference with prospective economic advantage.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.