Ecotone Farm, LLC v. Ward
| Decision Date | 23 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2:11-5094 (KM)(MAH) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
| Parties | ECOTONE FARM, LLC and WILLIAM R. HUFF, Huff, v. EDWARD A. WARD, et al., Defendants. |
This matter originally came before the Court on motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("2AC") (Docket No. 46), filed by the Defendants, New Jersey Conservation Foundation (Docket No. 47); Sally Ward (Docket No. 49); Marshall Bartlett, Regina Egea, Louis Lanzerotti, Nicholas Piatt, James Rybka, Township of Harding, Harding Township Committee, and Edward A. Ward, II. (Docket No. 51); and Apgar Associates and Paul D. Fox (Docket No. 53). In an Opinion and Order filed June 30, 2014 (Docket Nos. 86, 87), the motions to dismiss were granted and the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice to a properly supported motion to amend filed within 30 days.
Part of the basis for my June 30, 2014 decision was that certain claims were extinguished by res judicata, based on the parties' April 2011 Settlement Agreement and the dismissals of two prior state court litigations. I wrote that claim preclusion doctrines barred relitigation of claims against Harding that arose before the date of the settlement (the "pre-2011 claims"). Now, the Plaintiffs, Ecotone Farm, LLC and William R. Huff (collectively, "Huff") have moved for reconsideration. (Docket No. 88). In essence, Huff argues that my res judicata reasoning was incorrect because, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, one of the two dismissal orders was without prejudice, and therefore should not be regarded as a final judgment. On reconsideration, I find that, although the Settlement Agreement may preclude the pre-2011 claims,that issue may present factual questions that cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss. I have revised my June 30, 2014 Opinion accordingly.
That revision has necessitated others. In the June 30 Opinion, having dismissed the claims insofar as they were based on pre-2011 allegations, I did not include them in my analysis of the other issues raised on the motions to dismiss. I have amended the opinion to do so. In particular, I have now included the pre-2011 allegations in my analysis of the qualified immunity issues. For the reasons stated in this Amended Opinion, the bases for dismissing the post-2011 allegations also require dismissal of the pre-2011 allegations. In short, a federal court is a singularly awkward and unsuitable forum for local land-use disputes like the one presented here.
This Amended Opinion should be deemed to supersede and replace my Opinion of June 30, 2014. It leads, however, to the same result. The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the submission of a properly supported motion to amend within 30 days.
This case arises from a long-standing and regrettable dispute between neighbors. It concerns Plaintiff William Huff's efforts to renovate his home and two barns, which together with the surrounding property make up Ecotone Farm. Huff accuses the Defendants of misusing governmental power to interfere with his property rights and advance the private interests of his neighbors, Edward ("Ned") Ward and Sally Ward. The facts alleged in the 2AC are assumed to be true solely for purposes of this motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Ecotone Farm LLC is a commercial farm doing business on more than 31 acres of property in Harding Township, New Jersey. Plaintiff William Huff is a resident of Harding Township, a fee simple owner of the property, and the managing member of Ecotone Farm LLC. Id. ¶ 18. Huff and his family reside on the farm property. 2AC ¶ 17.1
Defendant Edward "Ned" Ward resides at 575 Tempe Wick Road, Harding Township, New Jersey. Ward is a member of the Township Committee (also named as a Defendant), which is the governing body of the Township. He hasserved as chair of the Township Personnel Committee. He is sued in his official and personal capacities. Id. ¶ 19. Defendant Sally Ward is his spouse. Id. ¶ 26.
Defendant Township of Harding ("Harding Township") is a municipality created under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Id. ¶ 20. Defendants Ward, Bartlett, Lanzerotti, Egea, Rybka, and Piatt were elected members of the Township Committee at relevant times. They are sued in their official and individual capacities. Id. ¶ 22.
Defendant Fox is Harding Township's municipal engineer. He lives at 220 Lamerson Road in Chester, New Jersey. He is sued in both his official and personal capacities. Id. ¶ 23. Defendant Apgar Associates, located in Far Hills, New Jersey, is a civil engineering firm owned by Fox. Id. ¶ 24.
Defendant New Jersey Conservation Foundation ("NJCF") is a private foundation in Far Hills, New Jersey. Id. ¶ 25.
This lawsuit follows a series of engineering reviews, notices of violation, state court proceedings, and other activities regarding property that Huff purchased on July 22, 1987 from the executor of the estate of Muriel W. Jarvis. Id. ¶ 28. Huff's property borders Jockey Hollow National Park on its western and southern sides. Id. ¶ 27.
Huff's parcel was once part of Jarvis's more extensive property holdings. Jarvis deeded about 132 acres of her property in Harding Township to NJCF. Id. ¶ 30. Ned Ward allegedly became close with Jarvis and assisted her in subdividing her property to create a home site for Ward's family. Id. ¶ 31. The Wards purchased approximately five acres from Jarvis at (according to Huff) a discounted price. Id. ¶ 32. The Wards' property had no direct access to a public road; instead the Wards obtained a limited ingress/egress easement for a driveway that ran across Jarvis's remaining property and connected to Tempe Wick Road. Id. ¶ 33.
Jarvis's will provided that her remaining property should be broken up into parcels "as large as reasonable." Id. ¶¶ 34-35. Ward, who is a real estate agent, allegedly encouraged the executor to sell the property and worked to find a suitable buyer. Id. ¶ 36. Ultimately, the executor agreed to sell the undivided property to Huff. The executor and charitable beneficiaries of Jarvis's will then engaged in litigation to determine whether that sale was consistent with the will or whether the property had to be further subdivided and sold. Id. ¶ 37.New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stanton approved the sale to Huff, but imposed a conservation easement in favor of NJCF. Id. ¶ 37.
The conservation easement prevented further subdivision of the property. Id. ¶ 38. Huff alleges that it did not, however, create any rights or interests for Ward or any other party beyond the "very limited rights" for NJCF. Id. Huff also alleges that the easement specifically provided that certain activities on his property, such as renovation and repair of existing structures, would not be restricted. At the time, such structures included a main house and two barns. Id. ¶ 40. The easement, says Huff, was Ward's idea because Ward wanted to curb further subdivision or interference with the view from his property. Id. ¶ 41. Huff alleges that the Wards, Fox, and NJCF leveraged the easement to violate his property rights by impeding construction and allowing Fox and Apgar to profit from baseless engineering charges. Id. ¶ 6.
Since the purchase, Huff has used the property for agricultural and equestrian purposes, to grow hay, and to breed, raise and sell miniature donkeys. Id. ¶ 44. Huff alleges that these activities qualify Ecotone as a commercial farm that is protected by the New Jersey Right to Farm Act ("RFA"). Id. Huff also alleges that the RFA preempts "certain aspects" of Harding Township's municipal regulatory authority over the Property. For these aspects, he says, the Morris County Agricultural Board ("MCAB") would have regulatory authority. Id. ¶ 45.
This is not the first time that the Huff's and Wards have litigated their property issues. The 2AC mentions a litigation, settled in 1998, regarding the driveway to the property. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49. Huff alleges that a key term of that settlement (the "1998 Settlement Agreement") restricted each party from taking photographs or videos of the other, or of the other's property. Id. ¶¶ 49-50.
Huff alleges that Defendant Sally Ward began photographing his renovation activities. She continued to take photos for the next three years in violation of the terms of the 1998 Settlement Agreement and Order. Id. ¶¶ 61, 62. Huff alleges upon information and belief that the photos were taken to aid Ned Ward and Fox with their efforts to interfere with Huff's renovation. Id. ¶ 63. Further state court litigation ensued as to whether the Wards had complied with the anti-photography obligation. Id. ¶ 51. (Other state court litigation is described infra.)
Huff alleges that, in 2001 and 2002, Ward used the municipal authorities to harass Huff by making "anonymous" accusations that Huff wasperforming unauthorized drainage work on his property and interfering with the conservation easement. Id.
In 2008, Huff started renovating one of the two original barns on the property. Id. ¶ 56. Beforehand, he obtained all necessary variances, zoning approvals, and construction permits. Id. He also submitted and obtained certification for a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as required by Harding Township. Id. Huff alleges that the terms of the conservation easement recognize Huff's right to maintain, replace, and operate the barns as "existing structures" on the Property. Id. ¶ 57. Huff also alleges that such renovation is proper because it is incidental to Huff's right to use the property for agricultural or equestrian purposes. Id.
Huff's renovations nonetheless allegedly inspired Ward to initiate "a series of harassing activities." Id. ¶ 58. Ward first attempted to impede the renovation by claiming that the construction activities impinged on his ingress/egress driveway easement, i.e., his driveway. In November 2008, Ward...
To continue reading
Request your trial