Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 01 June 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 18-650 (SDW) (LDW)
• Parties: WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of New Jersey, Defendant, and SENATE PRESIDENT STEPHEN M. SWEENEY, ASSEMBLY SPEAKER CRAIG J. COUGHLIN, NEW JERSEY SENATE, and NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Intervenor Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of New Jersey, Defendant,and SENATE PRESIDENT STEPHEN M. SWEENEY, ASSEMBLY SPEAKER CRAIG J. COUGHLIN,NEW JERSEY SENATE, and NEW JERSEY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Intervenor Defendants.

Case No. 18-650 (SDW) (LDW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

June 1, 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before this Court are Plaintiff Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor's (the "Commission" or "Plaintiff") Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 65, as well as Defendant Philip Murphy ("Governor Murphy") and Intervenor Defendants Stephen M. Sweeney and Craig J. Coughlin's (collectively, "Defendants") Cross Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(a) and 12(b)(6). Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED, and Defendants' Cross Motions to Dismiss are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1953, New York and New Jersey entered into the Waterfront Commission Compact (the "Compact") following various government investigations into pervasive criminal activity and widespread corruption in the Port of New York ("Port"). See De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 147-50 (1960) (discussing the Compact's history); Nat'l Org. for Women, N.Y. Chapter v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 468 F. Supp. 317, 318-19 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). To create the bi-state agreement, the states passed identical statutes in their respective legislatures; and as required under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3, on August 13, 1953, they obtained Congressional consent to enter the Compact. Waterfront Commission Compact, Pub. L. No. 83-252, 67 Stat. 541 (1953)¹; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:23-1 et seq.²; N.Y. Unconsol. Laws § 9801 et seq.

Pursuant to the Compact, the States of New Jersey and New York declare

that the conditions under which waterfront labor is employed within the Port of New York district are depressing and degrading to such labor, resulting from the lack of any systematic method of hiring, the lack of adequate information as to the availability of employment, corrupt hiring practices and the fact that persons conducting such hiring are frequently criminals and persons notoriously lacking in moral character and integrity and neither responsive or responsible to the employers nor to the uncoerced will of the majority of the members of the labor organizations of the employees; that as a result waterfront laborers suffer from irregularity of employment, fear and insecurity, inadequate earnings, an unduly high accident rate, subjection to borrowing at usurious rates of interest, exploitation and extortion as the price of securing employment . . . .

Compact, art. I, ¶ 1. As part of the bi-state endeavor, a two-member Commission was created as a "body corporate and politic, [and] an instrumentality of the States of New York and New Jersey."

Id. art. III, ¶¶ 1-2. The agency was vested with an array of tools to combat corruption on the waterfront. Id. art. IV; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:23-10 (general powers); N.Y. Unconsol. Laws § 9810 (general powers and duties). Pursuant to these powers, the Commission has "undertaken scores of investigations that have led to the conviction of hundreds of individuals who were conducting illicit activities in the Port, including, but not limited to, drug trafficking, theft, racketeering, illegal gambling, loansharking, and murder[.]" (Compl. ¶ 26a, ECF No. 1.) In addition to investigating criminal activity, the Commission "has also worked to expose the continued corrupt and discriminatory hiring practices on the waterfront and to implement measures to address them." (Id. ¶ 27.)

The Compact contains a concurrency requirement, which provides that "[a]mendments and supplements to [the C]ompact . . . may be adopted by the action of the Legislature of either State concurred in by the Legislature of the other." Compact, art. XVI, ¶ 1. Pursuant to this provision, the Compact has been amended numerous times through concurrent legislation.³ In recent years, this concurrency requirement has been a hindrance to New Jersey's legislature. (See Sweeney Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, ECF No. 22-2.) For instance, in 2007, New Jersey passed a bill to amend Section 5-p of the Compact and thereby divest the Commission of its discretion in opening or closing the longshoremen's register.⁴ (Sweeney Decl. ¶ 12); see also 2007 N.J. Laws 1289. In 2017, New Jersey enacted a bill that would allow New Jersey or New York's governors to veto actions taken at Commission meetings. (Sweeney Decl. ¶ 12); see also 2017 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 201, §3(e) (West 2018). Neither of these bills amended the Compact because New York did not enact concurring legislation.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 7, 2017 and January 8, 2018, New Jersey's Senate and General Assembly, respectively, passed New Jersey Senate Bill No. 3502 (the "Bill"), which among other things, withdraws the State of New Jersey from the Compact and dissolves the Commission. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 43.) As enacted, the Bill directs New Jersey's Governor "to notify the Congress of the United States, the Governor of the State of New York, and the [Commission], of the State of New Jersey's intention to withdraw from . . . the [C]ompact[.]" 2017 N.J. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 324, § 2 (West 2018). On January 15, 2018, New Jersey's then-Governor Chris Christie ("Governor Christie") signed the Bill into law. (Compl. ¶ 43.)

On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a one-count Complaint seeking a declaration that the Bill is invalid, void, and without force and effect, and requesting preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining Governor Murphy from implementing or enforcing the Bill.⁵ (See generally id.) On January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause and a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 8.) On January 18, 2018, this Court ordered Governor Murphy to appear on January 25, 2018 and show cause why he should not be enjoined from implementing or enforcing the Bill. (ECF No. 9.) On January 23, 2018, the parties stipulated to an extended briefing schedule, and the show-cause hearing was adjourned to February 22, 2018. (ECF No. 16.) In the interim, on February 1, 2018, this Court granted New Jersey Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney ("Sweeney") and Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly Craig J. Coughlin's("Coughlin") Motion to Intervene. (ECF Nos. 17-18.) On February 6, 2018, Governor Murphy opposed Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and cross moved to dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 21.) On the same day, Sweeney and Coughlin also opposed Plaintiff's motion, and cross moved to dismiss.⁶ (ECF No. 22.) On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff replied in support of its motion and opposed Defendants' cross motions. (ECF No. 29.) Governor Murphy replied in support of his Cross Motion to Dismiss on February 16, 2018. (ECF No. 30.) On February 21, 2018, New Jersey's Senate and General Assembly moved to intervene. (ECF No. 35.) On February 22, 2018, after the show-cause hearing was conducted, this Court reserved decision on the parties' motions with the exception of the legislative bodies' Motion to Intervene, which was granted. (ECF Nos. 37, 39.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may present either a facial or factual attack to a court's subject matter jurisdiction. "A facial attack 'contests the sufficiency of the complaint because of a defect on its face,' whereas a factual attack 'asserts that the factual underpinnings of the basis for jurisdiction fail to comport with the jurisdictional prerequisites.'" Halabi v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, No. 17-1712, 2018 WL 706483, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 5, 2018) (internal citations omitted). When reviewing facial attacks, "the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing In re Schering Plough Corp. Intron, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012)). In contrast, with a factual attack, "a court may weigh and 'consider evidence outside the pleadings.'" Id. (citing Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000)).

As with facial attacks under Rule 12(b)(1), when considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must "constru[e] the alleged facts in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. In so doing, the court must "determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (external citation omitted). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (discussing the Iqbal standard). Additionally, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231 (stating that Rule 8 "requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of an entitlement to relief").

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Cross Motions to Dismiss

Before reaching Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, this Court will first address Defendants' arguments...