United States District Court, D. New Jersey
CLARK DEMETRO, Union County, New Jersey, and CLARK & SONS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Union County, New Jersey, Plaintiffs,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUNCO INVESTIGATIONS, Baltimore County, Maryland, and ROBERT POCHEK, individual capacity, Middlesex County, New Jersey, and TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, NEW JERSEY, and JOHN DOE, Defendants.
KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.
plaintiffs, Clark Demetro ("Demetro") and Clark
& Sons Construction, LLC ("Clark & Sons")
brought this action against Defendants National Association
of Bunco Investigators ("NABI"),  Robert Pochek
("Pochek"), and the Township of Woodbridge, NJ,
("Woodbridge") based on allegedly defamatory
statements and violations of Demetro's rights under the
constitutions and laws of the United States and New Jersey.
In short, Demetro asserts that NABI has targeted and defamed
him due to his Romani ethnicity by cataloguing him in its
online database and sharing allegedly unsubstantiated
accusations of criminal conduct.
my dismissal of some of plaintiffs claims (DE 61, 62), the
remaining causes of action are as follows: (i) common law
defamation (Count 1); (ii) violation of plaintiffs right to
equal protection of the law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the New Jersey Civil Rights Act ("NJCRA"), N.J.
Stat. Ann. § 10:6-1 et seq. (Count 5); (iii) violation
of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
("NJLAD"), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12(f) based
on discrimination in a place of public accommodation (Count
6); and (iv) civil conspiracy to violate plaintiffs right to
equal protection of the law under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and
the NJLAD (Count 7).
of defamation and selective prosecution I must reject for
lack of evidence. The website, fairly read, reported that
Demetro had been criminally charged, which is a true
statement and therefore not defamatory. The record also
demonstrates that the website did not catalyze any
discriminatory prosecution or official mistreatment of
Demetro, who was charged locally based on an independent
protection claims, however, remain in play. There is evidence
from which a fact finder need not, but could, conclude that
information was published on this website on a discriminatory
basis. Some of the language on this website is appalling, and
the citizens have a right to expect better of the police.
"the police" because the members in question are
police officers. They do not necessarily lose that status
because they are acting under the auspices of an antifraud
organization, which occupies a sort of queasy middle status
between official and unofficial.
"appalling" because the website at times speaks in
broad ethnic categories, attributing fraudulent practices and
motives to the Romani people generally (who are referred to
as "gypsies," a charged and at least potentially
derogatory term). Of course law enforcement may, when
appropriate, use race or ethnicity (or height, or weight, or
eye color) to identify suspects. Of course law enforcement
may focus its attention on gangs or criminal organizations
that associate along ethnic lines. And of course this court
does not sit as a general arbiter of the language on
websites. But police-published statements attributing
criminality to ethnic groups-as opposed to factual statements
about particular persons or criminal organizations-can
undermine public confidence that the laws are being
before the Court are NABI's motion for summary judgment
(DE 83), and the motion of Pochek and Woodbridge for summary
judgment (DE 84), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. For the
reasons stated in this Opinion, the motions are denied in
part and granted in part. Defendants' motions for summary
judgment are granted as to the defamation claim (Count 1) and
the NJLAD claim for discrimination in a place of public
accommodation (Count 6). Defendants' motions are denied
as to the equal protection claims, both the direct claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NJCRA (Count 5) and the
conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Count 7).
Clark Demetro is a man of Romani ethnic descent who resides
in Elizabeth, New Jersey. (DE 97 ¶ 1; DE 83-10 at 4;
Pl.CS ¶ 1). The Romani people (also referred to as
"Roma" or "Rom") are a distinct ethnic
group originally of Asian origin. Historically and
colloquially they have been described with the epithet
"Gypsy," which can carry a derogatory connotation.
(DE 21 at pp.4-5, ¶¶ 1, 5). The Roma have
historically suffered from discrimination based on their
origin and an assumed connection with criminality.
was engaged in the business of home renovations through his
company, Clark & Sons, which was incorporated in New
Jersey in 2013 and has since discontinued operations. (DE 97
¶ 2; DE 83-10 at 9, 15; RP/W SMUF ¶ 31; Pl. SMUF re
RP/W ¶ 31). Clark & Sons advertised in "Home
Magazine" and similar publications in New Jersey, on
craigslist.com, and in flyers handed out by Demetro. (RP/W
SMUF ¶¶ 33-35; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶¶ 33-35).
Demetro did not maintain any business records for Clark &
Sons. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 37; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 37). He
could only remember the names and addresses for two of the
customers that Clark & Sons serviced. (RP/W SMUF ¶
38; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 38).
a non-profit organization that provides information to its
members about suspected fraudulent activity involving
'transient' criminals. (NABI SMUF ¶ 2; Pl. SMUF
re NABI ¶ 4; RP/W SMUF ¶ 39; Pl. SMUF re RP/W
¶ 39). NABI's members include law enforcement
personnel and individuals employed in related fields who are
involved in the detection and prosecution of criminal
conduct, and the apprehension of defendants. (NABI SMUF
¶ 3). It compiles and distributes
materials regarding recent developments in fraud related
crimes through electronic newsletters and bulletins. (NABI
SMUF ¶ 4).
has a history of publishing articles that include racially
charged generalizations about persons of Romani descent. (PL
CS ¶¶ 23-24; DE 97 ¶¶ 23-24). For
example, the following are excerpts from articles or text
that appeared on NABI's website:
all heard tales about gypsies and their mysterious ways,
though there's a good chance, many of those stories
aren't true. But these people really do exist. . . .
Their faces look like anybody else's here, but police say
these individuals, all Romanian citizens,  are a modern
take on notorious gypsies of old. . . . They'll look for
checkbooks, jewelry. . . anything that they think they can
convert to money." (DE 90-1 at 31).
"Ignorance is the Gypsies' weapon against the
outside world." (DE 90-1 at 40).
(Pl. CS ¶¶ 23-24; DE 97 ¶¶ 23-24).
the NABI website postings include disclaimers of
discrimination. For example, an article reporting on
NABI's 2006 annual conference notes one speaker's
generous concession that "[n]ot all Gypsies or Rom are
criminals." (DE 90-1 at 37). Nonetheless, the
participants' statements tiien largely cast such caution
aside: the speaker goes on to explain that NABI's
"main target was the thefts, swindles and frauds
perpetrated by Gypsies." (Id.). The article
also quotes a detective who presented at a NABI conference as
In his presentation, Det. Gary Nolte of Skokie showed a
painting of wagons passing through a bucolic countryside.
"Most of America thinks this is what a Gypsy is, I kid
you not," Nolte said. Americans "think it's
fun. They think it's a joke. Tambourine-thumping,
banjo-playing buffoons. That's what [Gypsies] want us to
think. But they're not."
(Id.). The article again quotes Nolte: "The
Gypsies, Nolte said, *have a common goal, and that's to
get over on us. They're going to steal from the
gaje [the non-Gypsy] every day of their life.*"
(Id.). The remainder of the account of the NABI
conference contains many other such descriptions, all
pertaining to "Gypsies" (or suspected
reporter who wrote the article also obtained the comments of
a university scholar (not a guest at the conference,
apparently) who pointed out that the NABI officers'
attitudes "are especially egregious because of the long
history of persecution of Gypsies." (Id.).
database has included photographs of individuals recently
arrested or suspected of criminal activity. (DE 90-1 at 23,
25, 43-47; Pl. CS ¶¶ 14, 15, 23, 24; DE 97
¶¶ 14, 15, 23, 24). Beneath those headshots, NABI
includes details about the individuals such as their height,
weight, hair color, eye color, potential aliases, and a brief
summary about their alleged misconduct. (Id.). Next
to some of these individuals' names appears a notation
"G/M" or "G/F", which perhaps stands for
"Gypsy/Male" and "Gypsy/Female", although
the parties have not explicitly said so. (Id.). Out
of the sample provided to the Court, most of the images have
either "G/M" or "G/F" next to the name,
while a few names have "W/M" or "W/F",
which ostensibly means "White/Male" and
appears in two NABI posts that have "G/M" next to
his name and image. (DE 90-1 at 23, 25; Pl. CS ¶¶
9, 14, 15; DE 97 ¶¶ 9, 14, 15). One of those posts,
from April 12, 2002, includes a description of Demetro
selling a watercraft at a pawnshop in Philadelphia. (DE 90-1
at 23). It also says that "Demetro has an extensive
record for Assaulting Police and Resisting Arrest when police
are called to domestic situations involving him."
[Id.). "G/M" is directly next to his name.
[Id.). The second post is from March 30, 2012, and
also has "G/M" directly next to his name. (DE 90-1
at 25). This post describes a Georgia traffic stop in which
Demetro was found to possess $20, 000 in cash. It also says
that "Demetro is involved in several scams involving
Auto body work and Psychic readings." (Id.).
Demetro appears in a third NABI post from May 2014, which is
discussed in further detail below, see subsection
I.A.ii, although that third post does not refer to
Demetro's ethnicity. (DE 90-1 at 6).
to the portion of NABI's website that includes
information about fraud suspects is restricted to NABI's
members. This section requires a username and password to log
in. (NABI SMUF ¶ 12). NABI has two classes of membership
with separate privileges: law enforcement ("LE")
members and associate members. (NABI SMUF ¶ 7; Pl. SMUF
re NABI ¶ 7).
qualify for LE membership, applicants must submit proof that
they are sworn law enforcement officers or certified by their
agency to access federal, state, and local databases
involving criminals, suspects, and arrestees. (NABI SMUF
¶ 8; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 8). According to NABI, only
LE members receive NABI materials with private and sensitive
information, such as a suspect's social security number,
birthdate, or FBI number. (NABI SMUF ¶ 9).
members of NABI, who are generally in the fields of loss
prevention, insurance, banking, or bail bonds, receive NABI
materials with redacted personally identifiable information
(Til") and do not have access to the unredacted
materials available to LE members. (NABI SMUF ¶¶
10, 11). The general public does not have access to the
redacted or unredacted information accessible by associate
members or LE members, as the website requires login
credentials to view that material. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 50; Pl.
SMUF re RP/W ¶ 50).
NABI rules, LE members are not permitted to disclose
information found on the unredacted version of the online
database or bulletins outside of authorized LE channels.
(RP/W SMUF ¶ 51; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 51). It is not
entirely clear how this rule is enforced and whether NABI has
any actual restrictions that prevent LE members from sharing
the unredacted information with unauthorized third parties.
disputes the assertion that only NABI members can access the
materials about fraud suspects on its website because he,
although not a member, possesses copies of NABI's online
materials that disclose his PH. (Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 9).
During the course of discovery, however, Demetro has refused
to explain with particularity how he obtained the NABI posts
that would otherwise only be accessible to its members.
See Subsection I.A.iii, infra.
itself has no authority to arrest or prosecute any criminal
suspect. (NABI SMUF ¶ 15; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 15).
LE members who perform their LE duties do so pursuant to
their LE roles and not on behalf of NABI. (NABI SMUF ¶
16; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 16).
Woodbridge is a municipality organized under N.J. Stat. Ann.
40A:61-1. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 52; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 52).
Woodbridge has a police department (the "Woodbridge
PD") (Id., ).
Pochek is a police officer who has been employed with the
Woodbridge PD since 1995. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 54; Pl. SMUF re
RP/W ¶ 54). Pochek became a LE member of NABI in 2004
and has served on NABI's Board of Directors
intermittently from 2007 through the present. (RP/W SMUF
¶ 55; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 55; Pl. CS ¶ 13; DE 97
¶ 13). Pochek served as NABI's Executive Secretary
from 2009 through 2014. (Id.). Pochek's employer
was aware of his activities with and membership in NABI. (Pl.
CS ¶ 21; DE 97 ¶ 21).
has been arrested on 26 separate occasions, including the
"Del Rosso Incident" outlined below. (NABI SMUF
¶ 19; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 19). None of those arrests
involved officers who were working on behalf of NABI. (NABI
SMUF ¶ 17; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 17). At least three
of those arrests resulted in criminal convictions for fraud
or forgery-related offenses. (NABI SMUF ¶ 20; Pl. SMUF
re NABI ¶ 20). Defendants attach various documents that
describe some of those arrests. (See NABI SMUF
¶¶ 21-23, 25; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶¶ 21-23,
The Del Rosso Incident
April 25, 2014, Michael Del Rosso ("Del Rosso")
filed an official incident report with the Woodbridge PD
against Demetro alleging that Demetro and his company had
committed theft by deception. (NABI SMUF ¶ 35; Pl. SMUF
re NABI ¶ 35). On May 16, 2014, Detective Andrew
Kondracki of the Woodbridge PD interviewed Del Rosso about
the basis for the incident report. (NABI SMUF ¶ 36; Pl.
SMUF re NABI ¶ 36).
alleged in Del Rosso's statement to Det. Kondracki, Del
Rosso's mother's driveway needed repair work, so he
contacted Clark & Sons around March 31, 2014, which his
mother learned of from an advertisement in a local flyer.
(NABI SMUF ¶ 37; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 37). After
"slicing" the concrete on the driveway, Demetro
determined that the project would cost $7, 500. (NABI SMUF
¶ 38; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 38). Del Rosso then signed
an agreement with Clark 8s Sons to complete the work for $7,
500. (NABI SMUF ¶ 39; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 39). Del
Rosso paid Demetro an initial deposit of $4, 350.
to what Del Rosso told the Woodbridge PD, Demetro never began
work on the project, but instead returned two days later and
claimed that he needed more money. (NABI SMUF ¶ 40). Del
Rosso agreed to enter into another contract with Clark &
Sons to also do some work on the house's gutters and gave
Del Rosso an additional check of $600 for the gutter repairs.
(Id. ¶ 41; RP/W SMUF ¶ 74; Pl. SMUF re
RP/W ¶ 74). Clark 86 Sons did repair Del Rosso's
mother's gutters, but the work was allegedly done so
poorly that Del Rosso had to hire another contractor to
properly repair it. (NABI SMUF ¶ 42). With respect to
the driveway, Demetro told Del Rosso that Clark & Sons
could no longer complete the renovations for the $7, 500 to
which Del Rosso had initially agreed but instead required
another $3, 000 to complete the job. (Id. ¶
point, Demetro told Del Rosso that Del Rosso would lose die
entirety of his deposit if he did not provide the additional
$3, 000. (Id.). Del Rosso decided to give Sons &
Clark a check for $2, 000, but after having second thoughts,
Del Rosso cancelled the check before anyone cashed or
deposited it. (DE 83-15 at 3). Then, on April 13, 2014,
Demetro showed up in person at the house and demanded more
money from Del Rosso. (Id.). Motivated by the
concern that he would lose the money he already put down as a
deposit, Del Rosso withdrew $2, 000 in cash from his bank and
gave it to Demetro. (Id.; RP/W SMUF ¶ 83;
Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 83; NABI SMUF ¶ 42).
brought the total that Del Rosso gave Demetro / Clark &
Sons to $6, 950. (DE 83-15 at 2). Driven by die large sums of
money Demetro demanded upfront without performing more work
on the driveway, around April 22, 2014 Del Rosso researched
Clark & Sons online and found numerous complaints about
the company, seemingly suspicious details about Demetro doing
business under different names (such as Clark Signo), and
details about one of his arrests in Florida. (NABI SMUF
¶ 45; DE 83-15 at 3; RP/W SMUF ¶¶ 84-86, 99;
Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶¶ 84-86, 99).
Rosso approached Demetro about the information he discovered
from his online research but Demetro denied the accusations.
(NABI SMUF ¶ 45; DE 83-15 at 3). Del Rosso never stated
diat the information he found online was from NABI's
website. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 87; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 87).
providing die $2, 000 in cash to Demetro, Del Rosso had
trouble getting in contact with Demetro. (Id.). When
tiiey finally did speak, Del Rosso informed Demetro that he
wanted back the money he put down as a deposit.
(Id.). Demetro did not return the money and Clark
& Sons did not do any additional repair work for Del
Rosso on the driveway or otherwise. (Id.).
Rosso then filed the April 25, 2014 incident report with the
Woodbridge PD describing these allegations. (NABI SMUF ¶
35; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 35). As a result of this incident
report, several arrest warrants were issued for Demetro, and
Woodbridge PD officers attempted to locate him. (NABI SMUF
¶ 46; Pl.SMUF re NABI ¶ 46).
27, 2014, Demetro was arrested by the Woodbridge PD as a
consequence of the Del Grosso Incident. (RP/W SMUF ¶
104; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 104). On November 20, 2014,
Demetro was indicted on several criminal counts, which
included charges for theft by deception and violations of die
Contractor Registration Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-136, et
seq. (NABI SMUF ¶ 49; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶ 49;
RP/W SMUF ¶ 105; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 105).
January 7, 2015, Demetro pled guilty to one count of Failure
to Display Registration Number, N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-144
(RP/W SMUF ¶ 106; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 106). On March
6, 2015, Demetro was sentenced to one year of probation and
was ordered to pay restitution to Del Rosso in the amount of
$6, 350-only $600 less than the total amount Del Rosso paid
to Clark & Sons, seemingly taking into account the work
performed on the gutters. (Id.; DE 83-16 at 4).
Online Posts About Demetro
22, 2014, six days after Det. Kondracki interviewed Del
Rosso, and while detectives from the Woodbridge PD were
actively attempting to locate Demetro, Pochek posted
information on NABI's website (the "May 22
Post"). The May 22 Post stated that Demetro used Clark
& Sons "to scam victims into paying for work that is
never performed" and was "wanted for Theft by
Deception among other offenses." (DE 90-1 at pp. 5-7;
NABI SMUF ¶¶ 34, 50; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶¶
34, 50; Pl.CS ¶ 3; DE 97 ¶ 3; RP/W SMUF ¶ 95;
Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 95). The May 22 Post shows two photos
of Demetro, lists his social security number, date of birth,
height, address, driver's license number, and his arrest
warrant number. (DE 90-1 at pp. 5-7). Pochek derived this
information from the complaint that charged Demetro with
Theft by Deception and violations of the Contractor
Registration Act. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 96; Pl. SMUF re RP/W
30, 2014 Pochek updated the entry about Demetro on NABI's
website, explaining that Demetro was arrested by the
Woodbridge PD, processed, and released after posting bail
(the "May 30 Update"). (Id.). Pochek noted
that the case was deemed "closed pending [a] court
hearing." (Id.). Like the May 22 Post, the May
30 Update was only posted on the secure portion of NABI's
website accessible only to LE and associate members. (RP/W
SMUF ¶ 95; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 95).
in the May 22 Post or the May 30 Update is Demetro identified
as Romani or a "Gypsy." (RP/W SMUF ¶ 98; Pl.
SMUF re RP/W ¶ 98). There is no mention of Demetro's
racial or ethnic background at all in those posts.
does not describe in detail how he obtained copies of
NABI's online materials about him, which are ordinarily
only accessible to NABI members. Demetro claimed that a law
enforcement officer-whose name he could not recall during his
deposition-showed him the content. (DE 83-10 at 43; RP/W SMUF
¶ 100; Pl. SMUF re RP/W ¶ 100). Demetro could not
remember which police department this unnamed officer worked
for, but could recall that the officer was no longer on the
force. (DE 83-10 at 43). Ultimately, Demetro has refused to
disclose this officer's name during the course of
discovery. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 101; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 101)
Demetro was evasive when questioned about the details of how
the unnamed officer procured this information and shared it
with him. (See DE 83-10 at pp. 43-44).
point prior to the Del Rosso Incident, Demetro had searched
his own name online and found unsavory descriptions of his
prior business dealings and encounters with the criminal
justice system. (RP/W SMUF ¶¶ 57-59; Pl. SMUF re
RP/W ¶¶ 57-59).
March 22, 2014, nine days prior to Demetro's initial
contact with Del Rosso, a former Clark & Sons customer,
Lynn Solomon, complained about her engagement with Clark
& Sons on a website called ripoffreport.com. (RP/W SMUF
¶ 60; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 60). Solomon alleged in her
post that Demetro performed substandard work, tried to get
paid before the project was completed, walked off die job
when she would not pay in advance of completion, and left a
"major mess." (Id.; NABI SMUF ¶¶
32-33; Pl. SMUF re NABI ¶¶ 32-33), On April 15,
2014, Solomon updated her previous post on ripoffreport.com
to explain how Demetro had been arrested in Florida under a
different name and that he had been using a separate name in
New Jersey. (RP/W SMUF ¶ 61; Pl.SMUF re RP/W ¶ 61).
three years prior to the commencement of this action, Demetro
was involved in another federal lawsuit against NABI that
made claims similar to those asserted in this case. See
Demetro v. Police Dep't, City of Cherry Hill, N.J.,
No. 11-cv-4377 (JLL), 2011 WL 5873063 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2011).
In that case, Demetro was part of a group of plaintiffs suing
NABI and various police departments and officers based on
alleged constitutional violations due to the plaintiffs'
Romani ethnic background. See id., 11-cv-4377 at
named as a defendant, NABI was never served in that action
and did not otherwise appear. Demetro, 2011 WL
5873063, at *3 f[T]here is no indication on the Court's
docket that service of process on NABI has been properly
effectuated, and NABI has not filed a responsive pleading or
joined in the motions to dismiss currently pending before the
Court."). Ultimately, the plaintiffs in that case
stipulated to its dismissal without prejudice in August 2012
without NABI ever having appeared or been served. See
id., No. 11-cv-4377 at ¶ 42.
October 21, 2014, Demetro and Clark & Sons filed their
original complaint in this action. (DE 1). On November 24,
2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. (DE 21). On
January 6, 2017, NABI filed a motion to dismiss all claims
for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim. (DE 47). In an Opinion and Order dated September
7, 2017, I granted in part and denied in part
NABI's motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
dismissing some of the claims and allowing others to proceed.
(DE 61, 62). Demetro v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bunco
Investigations, No. 14-6521, 2017 WL 3923290, at *l
(D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017) ("MTD Opinion").
I granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the following
claims: Count 2 for commercial disparagement because
plaintiffs failed to plead special damages; Counts 3 and 4
for defamation and false light because the claims were
untimely; and Counts 5 and 7 for violations of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the NJCRA only insofar as they asserted
claims based on reputational stigma alone. Counts 5 and 7
survive, however, insofar as they assert equal protection
claims. (DE 61, 62). See Demetro v. Nat'l Ass'n
of Bunco Investigations, No. 14-6521, 2017 WL 3923290
(D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017). Additionally, I denied the motion to
dismiss with respect to Count 1, a timely claim for
defamation, and Count 6, a claim for public accommodation
discrimination under the NJLAD, both of which remain.
September 7, 2017 dismissals were without prejudice to the
filing of a motion for leave to amend the complaint within 30
days. (DE 61, 62). There having been no motion to amend,
those dismissals have ripened into dismissals with prejudice.
(DE 62, 66, 75, 81).
before the Court are the motion of NABI (DE 83} and the
motion of Pochek and Woodbridge (DE 84) for summary judgment