JAIME FRIEDMAN; KAREN BANKS; KAREN BARNO; PEI-LING CUIFFO; MELISSA CURRENT; LINDA CUSICK; KATHLEEN D'ANGIOLLIO; DIPTI DESAI; SHARON HUNT; PAMELA HURLEY; MONIQUE JACQUES; JULIANNE KELLY; MEREDITH KOBSTAD; MELANIE LEHMAN; MARIE D. McMAHON; LEYDA J. MONTALVO; NAN NGUYEN; SOPHIA PENNANT; ANA RIVERA; MICHELE SELLNOW; RANDEE BETH SOFFER; CINDY TRABB; NICOLE BEIM; MARY LOU BURT; PATRICIA McEVOY; COLLEEN O'REILLY; MINWATTI RAMSAROOP; TINA ROGERS; PAMELA COOK, Executrix of the Estate of Fannie Woods, Deceased; and DIANE VAN SCHOICK, Plaintiffs,
TEODORO MARTINEZ, Defendant, and ELLEN ARENDT; BENITA C. BENJAMIN; LAURA DANDORPH; JENNIFER DiMILIA; TINA GALLOWAY; JANICE GOSLIN; LORI GRAY; SUNITI HARIDAS; SHARONDA M. HOGANS; ELEANOR HUNTER; MAXINE KENNEDY; STELLA LEE; ELENI C. MICHAEL; ANN M. OSLIN; MICHELE PFEIFFER; ALYSIA SACHAU; KALPANA SHAH; ANGELA SIMS; TRACEY TAYLOR; CHRISTINE VIGILOTTI; ASHLEY WATSON; DONNA WATSON; NETTIE WHITE; KELLY WILLIAMS; NATASHA JOHNSON; DIANE LANZAFAMA; GRAZYNA LeBRON; CAROL MOLINARI; NELITA PONTE and KIMBERLY BRYANT, Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents, and I&G GARDEN STATE, LLC, JONES LANG LaSALLE, INC., and LaSALLE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants-Respondents/ Cross-Appellants, and CRS FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent,
RUBEN SABILLON, JAMAR SAILOR, and PLANNED SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, and PLANNED COMPANIES d/b/a PLANNED BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; PLANNED LIFESTYLE SERVICES, INC. and CLEAN, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND, PLC; ING NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE CORPORATION; KRATOS d/b/a KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.; KRATOS PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.; KRATOS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and GEOFFREY CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC, Third-Party Defendants.
February 13, 2018
appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Bergen County, Docket No. L-0831-11.
Franklin P. Solomon argued the cause for
appellants/cross-respondents (Solomon Law Firm, LLC, Locks
Law Firm, LLC and Hill Wallack, LLP, attorneys; Franklin P.
Solomon, Michael A. Galpern and Suzanne M. Marasco, on the
William J. Buckley argued the cause for
respondents/cross-appellants I&G Garden State, LLC, Jones
Lang LaSalle, LLC and LaSalle Investment Management, Inc.
(Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys; William J.
Buckley and Thomas J. Cotton, on the brief).
Christopher J. Carey argued the cause for respondent CRS
Facility Services, LLC (Graham Curtin, PA, attorneys;
Christopher J. Carey, of counsel; Adam J. Adrignolo and
Jennifer L. Casazza, on the brief).
Gregory K. Mueller argued the cause for respondents Ruben
Sabillon, Jamar Sailor and Planned Security Services, Inc.
(Sclar Adler, LLP, attorneys; Brian B. Horan, on the brief).
Judges Fisher, Sumners and Moynihan.
FISHER, P.J.A.D. JUDGE.
reversing a partial summary judgment entered in
defendants' favor, we reject the notion that plaintiffs -
in alleging an invasion of their privacy in an office
building's restroom - could only claim the presence of a
hidden recording device by demonstrating their images were
more than sixty women claimed, among other things, that their
privacy was invaded when defendant Teodoro Martinez, a
janitor employed by defendant CRS Facility Services, LLC,
placed and maintained hidden surveillance equipment for
approximately six months to a year in a women's restroom in
a five-story Somerset office building owned by defendant
I&G Garden State, LLC, and managed by defendants Jones
Lang LaSalle, Inc. and LaSalle Investment Management,
In November 2009, following discovery of a recording device
in a women's restroom, police questioned Martinez and
obtained two USB camera devices and a laptop from the CRS
office at the Somerset office building; a search of
Martinez's residence uncovered other video surveillance
devices and computer equipment, and approximately eight hours
of surreptitious recordings of women. Martinez was indicted
but fled the country when released on bail.
considerable period of discovery, defendants moved for
partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the claims of
thirty-five plaintiffs who were unable to assert that their
images could be found in the eight hours of footage seized
during the police investigation. The motion judge concluded
that to defeat summary judgment these plaintiffs were
required to show that a recording device was present when
they used the women's restroom and that, to prove a
device's presence, each plaintiff needed to assert her
image appeared in existing footage:
The bottom line is [plaintiffs] still have to prove the
camera was there. . . . The only way they can do that is by
looking at the video to establish they were there.
this group of plaintiffs failed that test, the judge granted
defendants' partial summary judgment motions.
dismissed plaintiffs sought reconsideration without success;
three plaintiffs, however, identified their images in the
available materials and ...