From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. City of Atlantic City

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Oct 31, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-823 (JEI) (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2003)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that the State had not waived its sovereign immunity under consent decrees because the decrees did not evidence the explicit waiver needed to subject the State to the court's jurisdiction for federal civil rights claims

Summary of this case from Antonelli v. New Jersey
See 11 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-823 (JEI)

October 31, 2003

DONNAMARIE DAVIS, ESQ., Frost Zeff, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiffs

LISA DORIO-RUCH, ESQ., Trenton, NJ, of Counsel for Defendants the State of New Jersey Department of Personnel and the Merit System Board

KAREN M. WILLIAMS, ESQ., Jasinski Williams, Atlantic City, NJ, of Counsel for Defendants City of Atlantic City and Benjamin Brenner

ORDER

JOSEPH IRENAS, District Judge

This matter having appeared before the Court upon Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in an opinion issued by this Court, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are incorporated herein by reference, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS on this day of October, 2003,

ORDERED THAT:

1. The New Jersey Department of Personnel's and the Merit Systems Board's ("State Defendants") motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, III and V of Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.

2. State Defendants' motion to dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing is GRANTED.

3. The City of Atlantic City's and Benjamin Brenner's ("City Defendants") motion to dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing is GRANTED.

4. The City Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III and V of Plaintiffs' complaint is DENIED.

Summaries of

Bennett v. City of Atlantic City

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Oct 31, 2003
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-823 (JEI) (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2003)

holding that the State had not waived its sovereign immunity under consent decrees because the decrees did not evidence the explicit waiver needed to subject the State to the court's jurisdiction for federal civil rights claims

Summary of this case from Antonelli v. New Jersey

holding that the NJLAD does not contain the express language required to waive the State's immunity from suit in federal court

Summary of this case from Mughis-Sohrawardy v. N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection

explaining that Congress did not abrogate State immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 or 1985

Summary of this case from Patel v. Crist

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Carter v. Estate of Lewis

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Pittman v. Metuchen Police Department

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, 'the state is the real, substantial party in interest.'"

Summary of this case from Stilton v. East Jersey State Prison

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Aylor v. State

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Carter v. Estate of Lewis

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Hogg's v. State

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, the state is the real, substantial party in interest."

Summary of this case from Slaughter v. Rogers

stating that "[t]he breadth of state sovereign immunity protects not only states, but expands to protect entities and persons who can show that, even though the State is not the named defendant, 'the state is the real, substantial party in interest.'"

Summary of this case from Kandil v. Yurkovic
Case details for

Bennett v. City of Atlantic City

Case Details

Full title:BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Oct 31, 2003

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-823 (JEI) (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2003)

Citing Cases

JONES v. PUBLIC EMPYT. RETIREMENT PENSIONS DIV

There is a third exception, which is inapplicable here, that is triggered when state officials are sued in…

Jones v. Pub. Emp't Ret. Pensions Div.

There is a third exception, which is inapplicable here, that is triggered when state officials are sued in…

90 Citing Cases