Armano v. Martin
Decision Date | 15 January 2016 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 15-2634 (NLH/KMW) |
Citation | 157 F.Supp.3d 392 |
Parties | John J. Armano, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Michele Martin, Angela Donato, Nicholas Fazzio, John Rogale, Albert Frattali, and Sean Longfellow, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Louis Giansante, Giansante & Assoc., LLC, 23 E. Main Street, Moorestown, NJ 08057, f Plaintiff
Eric J. Riso, Platt & Riso, P.C., 40 Berlin Avenue, Stratford, NJ 08084, on for Defendants Michele Martin, Angela Donato, Albert Frattali, and Sean Longfellow
Ellis I. Medoway, Kerri E. Chewning, Archer & Greiner, PC, Haddonfield, NJ, on for Defendant John Rogale.
John C. Grady, Wardell Craig Annin & Baxter LLP, 41 Grove Street, Haddonfield, NJ 08033, on for Defendant Nicholas Fazzio
This matter concerns claims by a township's former solicitor regarding his allegedly improper termination. Presently before the Court are the motions of defendants to dismiss and for summary judgment. Plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment on two of his claims.1
For the reasons expressed below, defendants' motions will granted, and plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, John J. Armano, Jr., Esq., a New Jersey licensed attorney, was appointed by the Mayor of the Township of Washington, and confirmed unanimously by the Township's Council, as the Solicitor/Director of the Department of Law of Washington Township beginning on January 2, 2013. Plaintiff's contract ran until December 31, 2016. On January 3, 2015, however, the Township Council adopted Resolution No. 23-2015, which authorized the filing of charges against plaintiff seeking his removal, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:69A–36 &-37 and Section 2-398 of the Township Code. The Resolution arose out of plaintiff's law firm partner's representation of an individual who sued Township Council members in New Jersey Superior Court in March 2014. The charges filed against plaintiff asserted:
CHARGE: CONFLICT OF INTEREST—KNOWINGLY ENGAGING IN ACTION WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE INTERESTS OF CURRENT CLIENTS, DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF CLIENTS, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOW REPRESENTATIVES OF CLIENTS.
Specifications:
After having received notice of the charges,2 plaintiff refuted the charges in writing. In his response, plaintiff presented a report from a legal ethics expert who determined that Mr. Trimble's representation in the Daly case did not create a conflict of interest in violation of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to plaintiff's position as Washington Township's Solicitor. A hearing on the charges was held on January 21, 2015. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, but prior to the hearing, Council members had been provided with plaintiff's response to the charges. The Council voted 4-1 to remove plaintiff as Township Solicitor, and adopted Resolution 57-2015 to effect his removal. The Resolution provided a recitation of the procedural history leading up to the hearing, the presentation of evidence to the Council by the special counsel appointed to prosecute the charges, the list of exhibits provided to the Council, the specific findings by the Council, and the ultimate conclusion by the Council to remove plaintiff as Township Solicitor. (Docket No. 31-6.) The Resolution concluded:
Plaintiff claims that his termination was retaliation for his partner's representation of a political rival, and was a result of a classic “shake-down” so that another attorney could be appointed as solicitor and the current Township engineer would not be replaced. Plaintiff claims that the hearing “was little more than a kangaroo court or soviet-style show trial” because the “non-lawyer governing body” ignored the only competent evidence presented on the issue of violations of the RPCs, which was his expert who determined that plaintiff had not committed any ethical missteps. Plaintiff claims that “the Township's executive department [demonstrated] their willingness to act lawlessly, vigilante style, and wreak havoc on anyone who stood in their way,” and as a result the five named defendants “were able to secure their desired appointments without further opposition.” The defendants are Council members, Michele Martin, Angela Donato, Sean Longfellow, and Nicholas Fazzio, Albert Frattali, a member of the Board of Commissioners for the Delaware River Port Authority, and John Rogale, a retired former executive of the DRPA and former Council President of the Township Council.
Plaintiff filed a five-count complaint against the six...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reilly v. Vivint Solar
...is material if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Armano v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 3d 392, 400 (D.N.J. 2016), aff'd, 703 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, ......
-
Reilly v. Vivint Solar
...is material if, under the governing substantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Armano v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 3d 392, 400 (D.N.J. 2016), aff'd, 703 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, ......
-
Littlejohn v. Vivint Solar
...is material if, under the governingsubstantive law, a dispute about the fact might affect the outcome of the suit. Armano v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 3d 392, 400 (D.N.J. 2016), aff'd, 703 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 9......
-
eTeam Inc. v. SVS Techs. Ltd.
...if it is supported by evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's favor." Armano v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 3d 392, 400 (D.N.J. 2016), aff'd, 703 F. App'x 111 (3d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Defendant, however, does not provide any evidence that Nort......