Upper Saddle River

Settled (04/09/18): Settlement Agreement


U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17-cv-05512-JMV-CLW

FRIEDMAN et al v. THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER et al
Assigned to: Judge John Michael Vazquez
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor

Related Case: 2:17-cv-06054-JMV-CLW

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 07/28/2017
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Plaintiff
YISROEL FRIEDMAN represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
17 HULFISH ST.
STE 201
PRINCETON, NJ 08542
609-986-1120
Fax: 609-986-1199
Email: diane.sullivan@weil.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
CHAIM BREUER represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
YOSEF ROSEN represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
SARAH BERGER represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
MOSES BERGER represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
TZVI SCHONFELD represented by DIANE P. SULLIVAN 
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER represented by BRUCE S. ROSEN 
MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARVELLI, PC
210 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 301
PO BOX 240
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
(973) 635-6300
Fax: (973) 635-6363
Email: brosen@marc-law.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
JOANNE L. MINICHETTI
individually and in her official capacity as Mayor of the Borough of Upper Saddle River
TERMINATED: 08/08/2017
represented by BRUCE S. ROSEN 
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/28/2017  1

 

COMPLAINT against JOANNE L. MINICHETTI, THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER ( Filing and Admin fee $ 400 receipt number NEW034006), filed by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Order to Show Cause with Temporary Restraints, # 11 Memorandum of Law in Support of Temporary Restraining Order) # 12 Friedman Declaration) # 13 Civil Cover Sheet) # 14 Declaration of David Yolkut) (cm, ). (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 2 DECLARATION re 1 Complaint, by S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 3 DECLARATION of Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz re 1 Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to JOANNE L. MINICHETTI, THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER Attached is the official court Summons, please fill out Defendant and Plaintiffs attorney information and serve. Issued By *CHRISTINE MELILLO* (cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS (Attachments: # 1 Application in Support of Pro hac vice admission of Yehudah L. Buchweitz, # 2 Certified Statement)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Application in Support of pro hac vice admission of Jesse B. Mishkin, # 2 Certified Statement of Jessie B. Mishkin)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Statement In support of pro hac vice admission of Robert G. Sugarman, # 2 Application and Declaration in support of Robert G. Sugarman)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Statement in Support of pro hac vice admission of David Yolkut, # 2 Application and Declaration in Support of David Yolkut)(cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 Set Deadlines as to 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion set for 8/21/2017 before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (cm, ) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
07/28/2017 9 Letter from Diane P. Sullivan. (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
08/04/2017 10 NOTICE of Appearance by BRUCE S. ROSEN on behalf of JOANNE L. MINICHETTI, THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/07/2017 11 NOTICE by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS (Notice of Dismissal solely as to Defendant, Mayor Joanne L. Minichetti) (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
08/07/2017 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT JOANNE L. MINICHETTI. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 17-5512. (ld, ) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
08/10/2017 13 TEXT ORDER: Regarding the pending unopposed applications (ECF Nos. 5-8), counsel is directed to file a proposed order consistent with the Court’s Civil Case Management Order, http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/JWaldorCivilCaseManagementOrder.pdf.. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 8/10/17. (tjg, ) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
08/14/2017 14 DECLARATION re 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Robert G. Sugarman by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
08/14/2017 15 DECLARATION re 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Yehudah L. Buchweitz by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
08/14/2017 16 DECLARATION re 6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Jessie B. Mishkin by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
08/14/2017 17 DECLARATION re 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of David Yolkut by YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
08/14/2017 18 ORDER Granting 5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Yehudah L. Buchweitz; Granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Jessie B. Mishkin; Granting 7 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Robert G. Sugarman; Granting 8 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of David Yolkut, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 8/14/2017. (JB, ) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
08/15/2017 Pro Hac Vice fee of $600 received as to Yehudah L. Buchweitz, Esq., Jessie B. Mishkin, Esq., Robert G. Sugarman, Esq., and David Yolkut, Esq., receipt number TRE083361 (mps) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
08/16/2017 19 Application and Proposed Order for Clerk’s Order to extend time to answer as to Defendants.. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
08/17/2017 Clerk`s Text Order – The document 19 Application for Clerk’s Order to Ext Answer/Proposed Order submitted by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 9/1/2017. (JB, ) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
08/31/2017 20 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Reply to the Complaint by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
09/05/2017 21 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending Defendant Defendant Borough of Upper Saddle River’s time to answer the complaint until 9/29/17, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 9/5/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
09/05/2017 Answer Due Deadline Update – The document 21 Stipulation and Order submitted by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 9/29/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
09/14/2017 22  AMENDED COMPLAINT against THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER, filed by S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, CHAIM BREUER, YOSEF ROSEN, SARAH BERGER, MOSES BERGER, TZVI SCHONFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
09/20/2017 23  STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Reply to the Amended Complaint by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
09/21/2017 24  STIPULATION AND ORDER extending Defendant Borough of Upper Saddle River’s time to file an answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint until 10/13/17,etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 9/21/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
09/21/2017 Answer Due Deadline Update – The document 24 Stipulation and Order submitted by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 10/13/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
10/10/2017 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, MOSES BERGER, SARAH BERGER, CHAIM BREUER, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, YOSEF ROSEN, TZVI SCHONFELD. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Declaration of Yehudah L. Buchweitz, # 3 Exhibit A to Buchweitz Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Buchweitz Declaration, # 5 Exhibit C to Buchweitz Declaration, # 6 Exhibit D to Buchweitz Declaration, # 7 Exhibit E to Buchweitz Declaration, # 8 Exhibit F to Buchweitz Declaration, # 9 Exhibit G to Buchweitz Declaration, # 10 Exhibit H to Buchweitz Declaration, # 11 Exhibit I to Buchweitz Declaration, # 12 Exhibit J to Buchweitz Declaration, # 13 Declaration of S. Moshe Pinkasovits, # 14 Exhibit A to Pinkasovits Declaration, # 15 Declaration of Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, # 16 Exhibit A to Steinmetz Declaration, # 17 Exhibit B to Steinmetz Declaration, # 18 Exhibit C to Steinmetz Declaration, # 19 Exhibit D to Steinmetz Declaration, # 20 Exhibit E to Steinmetz Declaration, # 21 Exhibit F to Steinmetz Declaration, # 22 Exhibit G to Steinmetz Declaration, # 23 Declaration of Chaim Breuer, # 24 Declaration of Moses Berger, # 25 Declaration of Sarah Berger, # 26 Declaration of Tzvi Schonfeld, # 27 Declaration of Yisroel Friedman, # 28 Declaration of Yosef Rosen, # 29 Text of Proposed Order, # 30 Certificate of Service)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
10/11/2017 Set Deadlines as to 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion set for 12/4/2017 before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (cm, ) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
10/11/2017 26 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Reply to the Amended Complaint and Setting Forth a Briefing Schedule for Anticipated Motion Practice by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
10/11/2017 27 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending Defendant Borough of Upper Saddle River’s time to file an answer to the Amended Complaint until 11/2/17, and Setting forth a briefing schedule for anticipated motion practice, etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 10/11/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
10/12/2017 Answer Due Deadline Update – The document 27 Stipulation and Order, submitted by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER has been GRANTED. The answer due date has been set for 11/2/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
11/01/2017 28 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Joel Kurtzberg and Marci A. Hamilton, Esqs. by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq., # 2 Certification of Marci A. Hamilton, Esq., # 3 Certification of Joel Kurtzberg, Esq., # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
11/02/2017 29 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Judge Vazquez, # 2 Declaration of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq. and Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B-E to Bruce S. Rosen, Esq. Declaration,4 Exhibit F-I to Bruce S. Rosen, Esq. Declaration, # 5 Declaration of Theodore Preusch, with Exhibits, # 6 Declaration Robert T. Regan, Esq. with Exhibits, # 7 Declaration of Steven Forbes and Ex. A, # 8 Exhibit B to Steven Forbes Declaration, # 9 Declaration James Dougherty, # 10 Declaration of David Gudino, Esq., # 11 Exhibit A to David Gudino, Esq. Declaration, # 12 Exhibit B to David Gudino, Esq. Declaration, # 13 Declaration of Robert Hyman, # 14 Declaration of Donald Hausch with Exhibit, # 15 Declaration of David Lally with Exhibit, # 16 Declaration of Michael Spina with Exhibit, # 17 Declaration of Patrick Rotella, # 18 Exhibit A-N to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 19 Exhibit O to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 20 Exhibit P to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 21 Exhibit Q to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 22 Exhibit R to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 23 Exhibit S to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 24 Exhibit T to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 25 Exhibit U to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 26 Exhibit V to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 27 Exhibit W to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 28 Exhibit X to Patrick Rotella Declaration, # 29 Exhibit Y to Patrick Rotella Declaration)(ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
11/02/2017 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. Responses due by 11/20/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Brief Notice of filing of supporting papers for motion to dismiss, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
11/03/2017 31 ORDER granting 28 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Joel Kurtzberg and Marci A. Hamilton, Esq., etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 11/3/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
11/03/2017 Set Deadlines as to 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Motion set for 12/4/2017 before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (cm, ) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
11/09/2017 32 STIPULATION (Second) Setting Forth a Briefing Schedule for Motion Practice by BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, MOSES BERGER, SARAH BERGER, CHAIM BREUER, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, YOSEF ROSEN, TZVI SCHONFELD. (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
11/13/2017 33 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Joel Kurtzberg, Esq. to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 150 receipt number 0312-8250253.) (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/13/2017 34 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Marci A. Hamilton, Esq. to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. ( Pro Hac Vice fee $ 150 receipt number 0312-8250277.) (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/13/2017 35 STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING FORTH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION PRACTICE. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 11/13/17. (cm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
11/14/2017 Pro Hac Vice counsel, JOEL KURTZBERG, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (cm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
11/14/2017 Pro Hac Vice counsel, MARCI A. HAMILTON, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (cm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
12/04/2017 36 MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, MOSES BERGER, SARAH BERGER, CHAIM BREUER, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, YOSEF ROSEN, TZVI SCHONFELD re 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Yehudah L. Buchweitz, # 2 Exhibit K to Buchweitz Declaration, # 3 Exhibit L to Buchweitz Declaration, # 4 Exhibit M to Buchweitz Declaration, # 5 Exhibit N to Buchweitz Declaration, # 6 Exhibit O to Buchweitz Declaration, # 7 Exhibit P to Buchweitz Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Q to Buchweitz Declaration, # 9 Exhibit R to Buchweitz Declaration, # 10 Exhibit S to Buchweitz Declaration, # 11 Exhibit T to Buchweitz Declaration, # 12 Exhibit U to Buchweitz Declaration, # 13 Exhibit V to Buchweitz Declaration, # 14 Exhibit W to Buchweitz Declaration, # 15 Exhibit X to Buchweitz Declaration, # 16 Exhibit Y to Buchweitz Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Z to Buchweitz Declaration, # 18 Declaration of Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, # 19 Exhibit H to Steinmetz Declaration, # 20 Exhibit I to Steinmetz Declaration, # 21 Exhibit J to Steinmetz Declaration, # 22 Declaration of Kenneth Sullivan, # 23 Declaration of David Gudino, Esq., # 24 Declaration of S. Moshe Pinkasovits, # 25 Certificate of Service)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
12/06/2017 37 Letter from Robert W.Taylor.[Clerk’s note, Video Exhibit L sent directly to chambers] (cm, ) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
12/12/2017 38 REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion filed by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER re 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Theodore Preusch, with Exhibits, # 2 Supplemental Declaration of Robert T. Regan, Esq., # 3 Supplemental Declaration of Steven Forbes, # 4 Exhibit C to Supplemental Declaration of Steven Forbes, # 5 Supplemental Declaration of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq.,6 Exhibit J to Supplemental Declaration of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq.,7 Exhibit K to Supplemental Declaration of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq., # 8 Exhibit L-P to Supplemental Declaration of Bruce S. Rosen, Esq.)(ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
12/15/2017 39 Letter from Diane P. Sullivan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
12/18/2017 40 TEXT ORDER: Scheduling oral argument on the pending motion for preliminary injunction (DE25) for January 9, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Counsel are to confirm attendance via letter filed on CM/ECF no later than December 21, 2017. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 12/18/17. (ro, ) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
12/18/2017 41 Letter re 40 Order,. (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
01/03/2018 42 Letter from Bruce Rosen. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
01/09/2018 43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John Michael Vazquez: Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2018 re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by MOSES BERGER, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, YOSEF ROSEN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, CHAIM BREUER, TZVI SCHONFELD, SARAH BERGER, BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) filed by THE BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER. Reserved. (Court Reporter/Recorder John Stone.) (ro, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)

Transcript of Hearing held on 1/9/2018

01/10/2018 44 TEXT ORDER: As stated on the record on January 9, 2018, the pending motions to dismiss and for injunctive relief are adjourned to February 7, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. If either party requests that testimony be taken on February 7, the party shall by January 31, 2018 submit a letter to the Court which addresses the following: (1) the reason testimony is necessary, (2) the proposed witness(es), and (3) the estimated time necessary for such testimony. The party shall also include pre-marked exhibits intended to be used during the testimony. If either party opposes the request for testimony, the party shall submit a letter in opposition by February 2, 2018. Finally, if any party believes that the February 7, 2018 return date should be rescheduled (either sooner or later), the party shall submit a written letter request.. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 1/10/18. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
01/30/2018 45 Letter from Bruce S. Rosen re 44 Order,,,. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
01/30/2018 46 ORDER granting Defendant’s request to adjourn the dates set forth in the Court’s January 10, 2018 text Order. The hearing is rescheduled to 2/21/18 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 1/30/18. (cm, ) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
02/16/2018 47 Letter from Bruce S. Rosen. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
02/20/2018 48 ORDER that oral argument on the pending preliminary injunction is rescheduled to March 7, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 2/20/2018. (sm, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
02/20/2018 Reset Deadlines as to 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . Motion set for 3/7/2018 11:00 AM before Judge John Michael Vazquez. (sm, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
02/20/2018 49 ORDER Resetting Hearing on Motion 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : ORAL ARGUMENT, Motion reset for 3/7/2018 11:00 AM before Judge John Michael Vazquez.. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 2/20/18. (DD, ) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
03/06/2018 50 TEXT ORDER: Due to the impending weather in our area oral argument as to the pending 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is rescheduled for 3/12/2018 at 3:00 PM. Counsel shall file a status letter regarding the ongoing settlement negotiations by close of business on 3/8/18. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/6/18. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
03/06/2018 51 Letter from Plaintiffs and Defendant. (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
03/06/2018 52 ORDER adjourning the Pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction set for March 12, 2018 until the week of April 9, 2018, etc. re 51 Letter. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/6/18. (cm, ) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
03/06/2018 53 TEXT ORDER: The Court is administratively terminating without prejudice Defendant’s 30 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and Plaintiff’s 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction pending the ongoing settlement negotiations. Counsel shall file a status letter on or before 4/9/18 advising if this matter has been resolved. If negotiations fail, counsel may seek to have the motions reinstated by filing a letter on the Court’s docket. So Ordered by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 3/6/18. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
04/09/2018 54 Letter from Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – Settlement Agreement and Release)(SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
04/19/2018 55 ORDER granting Plaintiff’s request for this Court to retain Jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, etc. re 54 Letter. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/19/18. (cm, ) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
04/20/2018 56 NOTICE by BERGEN ROCKLAND ERUV ASSOCIATION, MOSES BERGER, SARAH BERGER, CHAIM BREUER, YISROEL FRIEDMAN, S. MOSHE PINKASOVITS, YOSEF ROSEN, TZVI SCHONFELD Notice of Dismissal (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/20/2018 57 Letter from Yehudah L. Buchweitz Regarding Revised Exhibit A. (SULLIVAN, DIANE) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
04/27/2018 58 Transcript of Motion Hearing held on January 9, 2018, before Judge John Michael Vazquez. Court Reporter: John Stone (201-341-6742). NOTICE REGARDING (1) REDACTION OF PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS IN TRANSCRIPTS AND (2) MOTION TO REDACT AND SEAL: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P.5.2(a) (personal identifiers). Parties seeking to redact and seal this Transcript, or portions thereof, pursuant to L.Civ.R. 5.3(g) must e-file a Motion to Redact and Seal utilizing the event `Redact and Seal Transcript/Digital Recording`. Redaction Request to Court Reporter due, but not filed, by 5/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/28/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/26/2018. (mfr) (Entered: 04/27/2018)


Statement by the Municipality:
 Update on ERUV

In 2015, Rockland Electric entered into a License Agreement with an organization to allow facilities related to an eruv to be installed on the utility’s poles in Bergen County, with the utility profiting from this agreement.  It has been reported that the project plans to attach wires to 113 poles in Mahwah, 40 in USR and 27 in Montvale.

The Mayor and Council never approved the installation of the eruv.  Rockland Electric did not notify the Borough of the agreement or the pending installation despite the fact that the Borough has an ordinance in place, (#16-15) which prohibits the placement of items on utility poles, of which Rockland Electric was aware.

Borough attorney Robert Regan instructed Orange and Rockland to remove the eruv on Monday, July 18.

On Wednesday, July 26 and Thursday, July 27, portions of the newly installed eruv in Mahwah and Upper Saddle River were vandalized.  A police investigation is underway and one arrest has been made.

On Friday, July 25, two Airmont, NY residents filed suit again the Borough in Federal District Court in Newark, seeking to prevent the Borough from removing the eruv installed on Orange and Rockland’s poles in our town.

The Borough agreed to allow the repair of the vandalized portions of the eruv, in return for the cessation of additional installation.  The Borough also agreed to delay removing existing eruv at this time.

At a special meeting held on Monday, July 31, the Governing Body retained Special Counsel, Bruce Rosen, of the McKusker Law Firm, an experienced litigator in Federal courts, who has handled cases involving eruv installations.

Special Counsel is exploring all options available to the Borough.  The Governing Body will aggressively fight to enforce our ordinance.

This is a matter of excessive entanglement with religion and violation of municipal ordinances.  It is not directed at any particular religious group.  The Governing Body will not tolerate or countenance any anti-Semitic or otherwise discriminatory comments at our public meetings and urge residents to avoid any such statements on social media or elsewhere.  Such statements will not be helpful to the Borough’s position and are totally inappropriate.

On the advice of legal counsel, the Governing Body will not be making any further statements at this time but will keep residents informed as the case progresses.


Statement by Municipality on September 7, 2017

Information regarding ERUV vs. Upper Saddle River

Since the filing of the eruv lawsuit against Upper Saddle River and the retention of counsel, counsel has been working diligently to gather materials necessary to assert an aggressive defense. Mayor Minichetti has been dismissed as an individual defendant, and we have been informed that the newly formed Bergen Rockland Eruv Association will soon be joined as a plaintiff (as it is in the Mahwah lawsuit). In addition, the time within which the Borough has to respond or to file a responsive pleading has been extended until the end of September.
The lawsuit involves what is known as the “Mahwah eruv” which runs from Mahwah along Sparrowbush Road to West Saddle River Road and north to the New York border. We are informed that the remainder of the poles in Upper Saddle River with PVC pipe (known as “lechis”) are not connected to an active eruv. The Borough has agreed to maintain the status quo with the “Mahwah eruv” only, pending further Court action, but has informed Plaintiffs it cannot proceed to add lechis to or repair the remaining lechis in this second eruv area along Old Stone Church and Weiss Roads. Nevertheless, Borough police will take appropriate action regarding vandalism of any lechis.
Because of the necessity of not revealing strategy or privileged information, the amount of information the Mayor and Council can provide is limited but all filed substantive court documents will be posted or linked to the Borough’s website.


Statement by Municipality on October 12, 2017

The Borough is preparing a motion to dismiss the eruv lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Newark. This type of motion asserts that even assuming the facts in the Eruv Plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) Amended Complaint are true, as a matter of law there is no valid legal claim, and/or no jurisdiction for the Court to determine whether such a claim exists.

Late on October 10, 2017 Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the case. Plaintiffs’ motion is similar to their previous request for a temporary restraining order filed on July 27, 2017, and essentially claims that under a set of facts and law they have set before the court, the Borough should be prohibited from interfering with the existing portion of the eruv near the Mahwah border or in further installation of additional parts of the eruv which cut through the Borough. The Borough intends to vigorously oppose this motion by setting forth its own set of facts and law that dispute the Plaintiffs’ facts and law. There are no further restraints on the Borough as of the filing.

An agreement exists between Plaintiffs and the Borough whereby the Borough agreed not to require Plaintiffs to take down the existing portion of the eruv on West Saddle River Road (into New York State) and Sparrowbush Road (toward Mahwah) pending the Court’s determination of the issue in exchange for Plaintiffs withdrawing their request for a temporary restraining order.

A second eruv that runs along Old Stone Church Road, East Saddle River Road and Weiss Road into Montvale is incomplete and the Borough has taken the position that no further work can be done on that eruv until the Court makes a determination. The Preliminary Injunction motion asks the Court for a ruling on both eruvs.

Before Plaintiffs filed the motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Borough and the Plaintiffs agreed that briefing regarding the two filings should be coordinated and the parties have jointly asked the Court for permission to do so. Under the tentative schedule filed with the Court on October 11, the Borough would file its motion to dismiss and answer the eruv plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction by November 2. The eruv plaintiffs would oppose the Borough’s motion to dismiss and reply to the Borough’s opposition to the preliminary injunction on November 20, and the Borough would reply to the opposition to the motion to dismiss on November 28. While the Motions will have a “return” date of December 4, 2017, these dates are rarely meaningful. It is unknown at this time whether U.S. District Court Judge Michael John Vasquez, who will hear the case, will hold oral arguments or hold a hearing on the two motions on December 4 or on any other date.


Statement by Municipality on March 30, 2018

Questions and Answers regarding the proposed eruv settlement.

What is the purpose of the Rockland County eruv?

Jewish law prohibits pushing baby carriages and carrying items, such as prayer books or shawls, outside of the home on the Sabbath and holidays such as Yom Kippur. An eruv allows Orthodox Jews to push baby carriages and carry items outside of their homes without violation of their beliefs by creating a series of symbolic “doorways” around a specific area, using existing utility wires and plastic strips or tubing called “lechis,” or even some natural formations. This creates a symbolic extension of one’s home within which such activities are allowed. The Rockland County eruv is actually a series of interconnected eruvin (plural of eruv) designed to allow all observant Rockland residents to walk to and from synagogue and elsewhere on holy days carrying/pushing/pulling items that they would otherwise not be able to carry, push, or pull.

If the eruv is for Rockland County residents, why does it need to go through Upper Saddle River?

The series of eruvin that connect Mahwah to Montvale are essentially the southern boundary of the Rockland eruvin. The Eruv Plaintiffs (those who sued all three towns to secure their ability to establish the eruvin) are members of various synagogues in Monsey and elsewhere in Rockland County. All of the Eruv Plaintiffs live in New York, some just a few feet from the New York/New Jersey border. The Eruv Plaintiffs claim that, for a number of reasons (relating to the availability of utility poles and natural formations), it is not possible to construct a border to the eruv that lies entirely in New York. The streets originally selected to construct the eruvin by these Plaintiffs are the first available relatively straight East-West and North-South thoroughfares south of the New York border, making them the easiest route to construct. Representatives of the Eruv Plaintiffs have recently told our lawyers that they plan to continue to develop their communities within Rockland County.

Who exactly is suing Upper Saddle River and what do they want?

A group of residents who live in Rockland County within the Mahwah Eruv, initially sued USR and Mahwah to prevent these municipalities from dismantling an eruv they had established. These Plaintiffs believe they do not need municipal approval to place the lechis on poles — that all they need is a license from the utility companies, which has been routinely granted. The Borough’s position has been that any attachments must be subject to its Ordinances, which require municipal approval before any matter may be attached to utility poles. Later, a second group of plaintiffs and an “eruv association” joined the lawsuit, seeking to force USR to allow them to complete a second eruv that begins on West Saddle River Road and runs to Montvale across Old Stone Church and Weiss Roads. These complaints were filed under federal civil rights laws, which carry with them the possibility of an award of legal fees to successful plaintiffs in addition to the Borough paying its own legal fees.

Why did USR oppose the eruv?

USR has a long history of keeping its poles clear of signs and other postings, other than utility-related materials. In opposing Plaintiffs’ claims, the Borough was following through with its historical efforts to keep its poles clear, an aggressive defense of its ordinance prohibiting posting signs and other materials on utility poles, and reacting to constituents’ similar comments in this regard.

Why doesn’t USR stick to its guns and continue to fight this lawsuit?

Court decisions in cases brought by eruv proponents in the past have made it difficult to pursue actions to prohibit eruvin. For example, the Long Branch case determined that eruvin are constitutional and the Tenafly case essentially ruled that if anyone uses utility poles for secular purposes, religious purposes cannot be prohibited.

USR vigorously opposed Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain an injunction to prohibit USR from removing already-installed lechis but also moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. USR’s motion papers included extensive legal arguments, supported by numerous affidavits from municipal officials and even a Verizon lawyer. . The submission by USR was among the most comprehensive legal and factual arguments ever made against establishment of an eruv in violation of a municipal ordinance. However, in January, Judge John Michael Vasquez of the U.S. District Court in Newark, who was also assigned the cases involving Mahwah and Montvale, strongly recommended that the parties to this matter settle.

During what was supposed to be oral argument on the motions, the Court issued a tentative and preliminary opinion on the merits of the case, focusing on Plaintiff’s application for an injunction against the Borough stopping completion of the eruv. In making that analysis, the Court focused on whether plaintiffs had a “probability of success on the merits” and strongly suggested that plaintiffs might succeed in arguing that the Borough’s 2015 sign ordinance was enacted with discriminatory intent to specifically prohibit eruvin. In sworn statements submitted to the Court, municipal officials had denied any such discriminatory intent and continue to deny it. The judge agreed to consider whether to allow supplemental testimony from these officials before it made a final determination; however, he again emphasized his recommendation that the parties settle.

Even had the judge made an adverse ruling, ordering a preliminary injunction, the Borough would still be entitled to take the matter to trial. However, during that same proceeding, in a private meeting with the judge and counsel, the Plaintiffs’ attorneys offered to forego most of the attorneys’ fees that they would claim as a prevailing party (at the time more than $900,000) if USR would settle without further litigation. In addition, the Court and USR’s attorneys were told about Plaintiffs’ proposed settlements with Mahwah and Montvale, which made success in our litigation even more problematic. (USR is quite literally in the middle).

If USR continues to fight, the case would have to go to trial, and, because the judge revealed at least preliminary predilections adverse to USR, it could risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in its own additional legal fees, plus the possibility of upwards of $2 million or more worth of Plaintiffs’ legal fees. This does not include the cost of a potential appeal.

What does the settlement provide?

USR’s lawyers, working with a committee of the Borough Council, have agreed on a tentative settlement. The Borough Council must approve this settlement for it to be final.

The proposed settlement substantially reduces the size of the eruv originally prosed in Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. The original eruvin in USR designed by Plaintiffs essentially ran from the Mahwah border across Sparrowbush Road to Old Stone Church to Weiss Roads, cutting a line across the northernmost portion of the Borough containing almost 20% of the Borough, or about 640 acres and about 557 homes. Unlike the settlements in Mahwah and Montvale, the USR eruv route would change substantially. The USR settlement calls for a new eruv route that cuts as close to the New York border as possible from West Saddle River Road to near the Montvale border, cutting the amount of land within the USR eruv by more than 60% and the amount of acres to 253 and homes to 230. Below you will find a map depicting the difference between the old and new routes. Every USR home still within the proposed new eruv route would have been part of the original route proposed by Plaintiffs.

Mahwah and Montvale’s agreements allow the Plaintiffs to come back and renegotiate their routes two years from execution (i.e., February 2020). In USR, Plaintiffs can seek to renegotiate their route three years from completion of the new eruv route, or approximately summer 2021. For a variety of reasons, we do not expect this issue to reemerge in the short term in 2021.

All of the lechis under the USR tentative agreement would be converted from white PVC pipe with aluminum strapping to less visible black plastic installed with nails or screws. In USR, Plaintiffs must change the lechis within 120 days from the date the settlement is signed. In contrast, Mahwah has granted Plaintiffs a year to paint existing lechis brown or black. Paint could, of course, chip and fade, necessitating regulate maintenance. Montvale has a similar provision to Mahwah; however, its agreement is silent on how long Plaintiffs have to paint those lechis.

In USR, the eruv association would be permitted to install about 10 poles, roughly the thickness of a flagpole and approximately 18 feet high, within the municipal right of way to allow for the alternate route. This agreement does not provide legal access to property not owned by USR, other than rights of way and/or easements granted to USR.

The Borough will pay $75,000 worth of legal fees to settle Plaintiffs’ claim. While it is more than Mahwah or Montvale paid, we are the only one of the three defendant municipalities to engage in active litigation with Plaintiffs and we are getting far more in terms of settlement value.

If the route has changed, then why do I still see work being performed elsewhere in USR?

Not unexpectedly, it will take several weeks to complete the new eruv route. Recently, while settlement discussions were progressing and in order to avoid returning to a litigation mode, Plaintiffs were granted permission to complete its temporary eruv from the Mahwah border across Sparrowbush Road to Old Stone Church to Weiss Roads. This temporary eruv allows observant Rockland residents to walk to and from Rockland synagogues and elsewhere on holy days carrying/pushing/pulling items. The proposed settlement requires Plaintiffs to complete the new eruv route within 60 days from the date the settlement agreement is signed. After the new eruv has been completed, Plaintiffs must take down the temporary eruv, at their own expense, within 45 days.

Why do I see bucket trucks working on poles around the eruv route?

For an eruv to be used, the boundary created must be unbroken and lechis must be straight up/down utility poles. If the eruv has been invalidated, then it must be repaired before the Sabbath or certain holy days; otherwise, the eruv cannot be used by Orthodox Jews. For inspections, restoration, maintenance, checking, repair, or replacement of lechis or other eruv components to occur, there may occasionally be someone working to fix “breaks” in the eruvin. Plaintiffs do not have authority to violate federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Accordingly, the USR settlement agreement requires Plaintiffs notify the Borough Police Department before any installation, maintenance, or repair of the eruv, identifying the location of the pole(s) on which such installation, maintenance, repair, and/or expansion work shall be conducted. Further, Plaintiffs must employ a flagman during such work and abide by all traffic safety rules.

If residents observe what appears to be suspicious activity, traffic obstruction, and/or illegally parked vehicles, whether or not it involves eruv installers or repair people, you can contact the USR Police Department but residents should not engage in acts of self-help.

How will the eruv impact me?

Largely, the eruv will have no impact on residents’ day-to-day lives. You probably will not notice that, once a week, someone will drive or walk along the eruv route to make sure it is unbroken. These inspections are permitted and necessary to ensure there is no break in the eruv that would prohibit observant Rockland residents from walking to and from Rockland synagogues and elsewhere on holy days carrying/pushing/pulling items. If the eruv is damaged or invalidated, repairs may need to be performed. Again, Plaintiffs must notify the Borough Police Department before any installation, maintenance, or repair of the eruv and, like everyone else, must abide by all traffic safety rules.

What will having an eruv in USR cost the Borough?

Nothing. Plaintiffs are required by law to inspect, install, maintain, and/or repair the eruv at their own cost.

Will Plaintiffs’ be insured for the work they are doing?

Yes. Prior to commencing any work within USR, Plaintiffs (and any contractor or agent engaged or hired by them) must furnish a certificate of insurance to USR evidencing liability insurance for at least $1,000,000.00 per occurrence and $2,000,000.00 aggregate and listing USR, its officials, and employees as additional insured.

Can Plaintiffs change the eruv route?

The USR settlement agreement prohibits Plaintiffs from renegotiating the route for three years from completion of the new eruv route, or approximately summer 2021. Again, for a variety of reasons, we do not expect this issue to reemerge in the short term after the three year period is complete.

What if utilities are moved underground?

The USR settlement agreement does not prevent the Borough from moving utility wires underground. If the removal or replacement of utility poles results in the eruv no longer being valid, then USR has agreed to work in good faith with Plaintiffs to find a reasonable and practicable solution for reestablishing a valid eruv.

What if Plaintiffs no longer use or plan to use the eruv in USR?

If Plaintiffs abandon the eruv, then Plaintiffs are responsible for removing all lechis and other eruv components at their own expense.

So, were Plaintiffs right? Is USR admitting that it violated the law?

USR continues to believe in the legal arguments it made during this litigation. Settlement of this lawsuit is a business decision. Constitutional claims, such as the one made by Plaintiffs, allow for a prevailing plaintiff to recover his/her/its attorneys’ fees and costs. Here, at the time of settlement, Plaintiffs represented they incurred more than $900,000.00 (now, considerably higher) in legal fees and costs. In considering USR’s costs of litigation, the risks associated with proceeding with discovery and trial, the potential for being responsible from paying for Plaintiffs’ legal costs, the difficulties created by settlements with Mahwah and Montvale and the extremely bad publicity coming from incidents in Mahwah, the Borough Council will be voting on whether it is in the best interests of the Borough and its residents to settle this matter. The USR settlement agreement makes no admission of liability, nor any representation that Plaintiffs were right.

What do residents have to fear from this eruv?

Nothing. It goes without saying that anyone may walk or drive through USR at any time or buy or rent a home in USR. The Borough attempted to defend its Ordinances vigorously but never intended to act, or acted discriminatorily toward any group.

Comments are closed.