Friday March 28th, 2014 Hearing:  El Aemer El Mujaddid, v. Lynn A. Wehling, City of Vineland, Cumberland County, et. al.

 

Transcribed words of Judge Robert G. Millenky, J.S.C.:

 

“Alright, this is the matter of El Mujaddid v. the City of Vineland, docket L-4550-13 there are several motions pending in this matter, and these matters have been pending since February, they have been pending because there has been some confusion that the court has faced in deciphering what pleadings address, what motion, to the extent that the court has reviewed the pleadings and attempted to create a juxtaposition of pleadings that makes sense, the court notes the following, first with a return date of February 14th, 2013, the Cumberland county prosecutor’s office, Jennifer Webb McRae, and John Flynn and Lynn Wehling filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for a more definite statement, principally they pointed out that with respect to the verified complaint which had been filed on June 17th, 2013, excuse me June 18th 2013 in Burlington County that complaint failed to make any direct allegations against the Cumberland County Prosecutor Jennifer Webb-McRae or against any of the members of her office John Flynn and Lynn Wehling, at or about the same time that, that motion was filed with the court which is to say January 29th 2013 or January 30th 2013 the plaintiff filed it would appear a motion for summary judgment and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, additionally in connection with that motion for summary judgment the plaintiff sought to outline the basis for among-st other things a cause of action against the individual prosecutors, but what the plaintiff did not submit at that time that is in or about January 30th, 2014, was a form of an amended complaint, but just a motion for leave to file it, the court is unclear as to whether or not the purpose of this filing was too in anyway respond to the motion to dismiss, but the court suspects not because the filings appeared to be so contemporaneously thereafter the plaintiff filed a document, but it appears not to be part of a motion that was entitled amended complaint in lieu of prerogative writs and action for declaratory judgment and more definite statement, in this amended complaint there are additional parties listed in the caption, more particularly it list Jennifer Webb McRae, Jonathan M. Flynn and Lynn A. Wehling members of the prosecutor’s office who had previously been listed, but additionally Rose Marie Gallagher, Cumberland County and the Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office, the Court would understand that this amended complaint was submitted as part of the motion for leave to file an amended complaint the court reads the amended complaint and notes that it contains some more specific allegations as to members of the Cumberland county prosecutor’s office for example a paragraph 157 although the heading to the paragraph is captioned the reasons why the writs should issue against the defendant’s the paragraph seems to contain allegations saying that the action arises directly from the conduct of defendant Lynn A. Wehling Webb McCrae, Jonathan Flynn and the Cumberland County Prosecutors Office saying that in paragraph 158 that the defendants are collectively responsible for sending the city of Vineland municipal court and prosecutors CDR 2 instruments to be prosecuted while knowing that the instruments had not been executed in compliance with the Court Rules, given that the motion to dismiss set forth this assertion that there was an absence of allegations as to these members of the prosecutor’s office the court is satisfied that the amended complaint at least facially attempts to set forth more specific allegations in consequence with respect to the prosecutor Jennifer Webb McCrae motion along with john Flynn and Lynn Wehling’s to dismiss or for more definite statement, the court grants the motion for more definite statement and likewise the court grants the motion for leave to file an amended complaint concluding that the complaint dated February 24th 2014 contemplates the form of amended complaint that the plaintiff proposes should constitute the amended complaint, the court allows, or excuse me grants therefore the motion for leave to file the amended complaint, and the amended complaint with that date February 24th, 2014 shall be filed in the law division of Camden county under docket L-004550-13 the plaintiff must specifically file the complaint since the motion for leave to file an amended complaint only grants the ability to actually file that amended complaint, plaintiff shall serve a copy of the filed amended complaint on each of the parties to this action, as for the motion for summary judgment, the court denies the motion for summary judgment, since none of the facts in this case, have been developed and would allow this court to evaluate whether from the perspective of the non moving parties there is a color-able position that would stand in the way of the grant of summary judgment therefore it is denied without prejudice, any administrative dismissal which may have been entered on the record by the clerk’s office because of either delay or confusion as to the filing of an answer by any of the defendants shall be vacated and the defendants shall have 35 days from the date of this order for then which to file an answer or otherwise plead, ah i said the date of the order, but i guess we ought to say, date of service huh, okay from the date of service to answer or otherwise plead, i think that does it.”