Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Gilgallagon v. Hudson County (No. 07-1018)

Soret ps US.

KO 0710180CT 9- 2007

NO.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

RONALD GILGALLON, EILEEN GILGALLON

SHAWN GILGALLON - PETITIONER

V.

THE COUNTY OF HUDSON, ROBERT

JANIZEWSKI, FRANCIS DELEONARDIS, MARK -

MORCHEL, MICHAEL CIFELLI, THE BOARD OF

CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, NEIL CARROL,

VINCENT ASCOLESE, NEPTALIA CRUZ,

WILLIAM BRAKER, NIDIA DAVILA-COLON,

WILLIAM O’DEA, ALBERT CIFELLI, SILVERIO

VEGA, MAURICE FITZGIBBONS, CONNELL

FOLEY LLP, JOHN P. LACEY, LABOR

MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS INC., JOHN

MONROE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JOSEPH

TRAPP, and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10 (a

fictitious corporation) and JOHN and MARY DOES

1-10 (fictitious persons)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY AND THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

RONALD GILGALLON

206 7TH STREET

HARRISON, NEW JERSEY 07029

570-828-7978

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Can the District Court issue a permanent

injunction pursuant to the Re-Litigation exception

to the Anti-Injunction Act if the claim sought to be

enjoined was never previously decided by a Federal

Court, and, are the Courts obliged to demonstrate

that the issue or claim was previously decided?

2. Is the District Court required to make findings

of fact and correlate them with conclusions of law

in support of its opinion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

52, and is the Appellate Court required to make an

assessment of the District Court’s findings, or the

lack thereof, in its own opinion?

3. Does a permanent injunction issued pursuant to

the Re- Litigation exception to the Anti-Injunction

Act by the United States District Court enjoining a

party from pursuing claims in New Jersey’s

Superior Court violate the party’s right to due

process if, in fact, the Court cannot satisfy any

exceptions to the Statute 28 U.S.C.A. 2283?

LIST OF PARTIES

[] All parties appear in the caption of the case on

the cover page.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .

OPINIONS BELOW/

FEDERAL COURT CASES

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL &

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

LEGAL ARGUMENT .

CONCLUSION .

b, bb

ili

AED O Wp

EXHIBITS

OPINION JULY 20, 2007

OPINION JUNE 19, 2007

OPINION JULY 10, 2006

OPINION FEBRUARY 23, 2006

OPINION JANUARY 4, 2006

OPINION JANDARY 31, 2001

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW:

Amaglamated Clothing Workers v Richmond Bros,

348 U.S. 511, 515, 516 (1955) ; ; 5

Armstrong v Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85

S. Ct 1187, 1191 (1965) ; 13

Atlantic Coast line R.R. Co. v_ Locomotive

Engineers,

398, U.S. 281, 287 (1970) : 4

Blaisdell Lumber Co v Holton, 242 N.J. Super 98,

102 (App Div 1990) ' ; ~s

Chick Kam Choo v Exxon Corp, 486 U.S. 140,

147-48 (1988) . : ’ : 2. 3.12

Curtis v Finnerman, 83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980) . 8

Kenwood Assoc. v Bd of Adj of Englewood,

141 N.J. Super 1 (App Div 1976); 8

Kolanovic _v_ Gida, 77 Supp 2d 595, 601 (D.N.J.

1999) ’ ; 4,12

Mathews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96

S Ct 893, 902 (1976); . ; ee

National R.R. Passenger Corp. v Pa. R.R. Pub Util.

Comm,

342 F3d 242, 255 (3r4 Cir 2003). ; 2

b

Rosenblitt v Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391 (2001).

4,12

State v Singletary, 165 N.J. Super 421, 424-25 (App

Div), Certif Denied, 81 N.J.50 (1979); .’ 8

Texas Commerce Bank Nat'l Assn v Florida,

138 F 3d 179, 182 (5 Cir 1998) ; 12

Wertlake v Wertlake, 137 N.J. Super 476, 485-86

(App Div 1975) . .8

STATUTES

28 U.S.C.A. 2283 ; ,

2,51Stat 76. ; | 4

ACTS:

Judiciary Act of 1789 . 4

Anti-Injunction Act. .§ £24658

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Fed RCiv P52. ; 6, 7

OTHER

Wright, Miller and Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure, 4226 (Supp 1977). 3, 8,9

Brochin & Sandler, Appellate Review of Facts in

New Jersey Jury and New Jersey Cases, 12

Rutgers Law Rev 482 (1947), ‘ 9

Conford, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

92 N.J.L.J. (1969)

bb

CONSTITUTIONAL AND

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

STATUTES: 28 U.S.C.A. 2283 (I STAT 76)

CONSTITUTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

(DUE PROCESS)

RULES: FEDERAL RULE OF PROCEDURE 52

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States District Court failed to make any

findings of fact concerning petitioners’ argument of

spoliation of evidence against the County of Hudson

pursuant to Fed R Civ P. 52. On appeal, the Third

Circuit failed to address the petitioner's arguments

concerning this issue, and subsequently it failed to

make any findings of fact.

The petitioners filed a complaint in New Jersey’s

Superior Court. The petitioners alleged that their

former attorneys engaged in legal mal practice

during an action filed in the United States District

Court under docket number 00-591. Shortly

thereafter, the petitioners filed a motion to amend

the complaint to include the allegation of spoliation

of evidence against the County of Hudson in New

Jersey and its corporate counsel, Michael Dermody.

The newly named defendants filed a motion for

summary judgment. The motion was denied. Rather

than appeal the decision in State Court, the

defendants sought relief in the United States District

Court. The motion was filed under docket number

00-591. The defendants argued that the issue of

speliation of evidence had been previously decided

during civil action 00-591. The Court issued its

decision. The petitioners were enjoined from

pursuing claims against corporate counsel, Michael

Dermody pursuant to the relitigation exception to

the Anti-Injunction Act. The Court did not make any

findings of fact concerning the issue of spoliation of

evidence. Additionally, the Court decided not to

include the County of Hudson in the order because

they were not a party in civil action 00-591. 1

ita.

After the District Court order had been issued,

the New Jersey Superior Court ordered discovery.

The discovery process yielded newly discovered

evidence that solidified the allegations of spoliation

of evidence. The petitioners filed a motion for leave

to amend the complaint to include this newly

discovered evidence. Rather than file a motion for

summary judgment, the defendants filed a second

motion in the United States District Court. Once

again, they asked the District Court to enjoin the

petitioners from pursuing the claim of spoliation of

evidence in New Jersey's Superior Court pursuant to

the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.

However, this time the defendants filed the motion

under docket number 02-5948. Obviously,

dissatisfied with the decision in the earlier court

proceeding not to include the County of Hudson, the

defendants filed a lateral application before a

different judge.

An evidentiary hearing was held on November 28,

2005. The petitioners argued the District Court had

already decided the matter concerning the County of

Hudson. They argued that civil action 02-5948 had

absolutely no relationship with the allegations

concerning civil action 00-591 filed in New Jersey's

Superior Court. Despite this information, the Court

issued a permanent injunction against petitioners

from pursuing any allegations against the County of

Hudson or its’ agents in any Court. The order was

issued under civil action 02-5948.

In response, the petitioners filed a motion for

reconsideration. The motion was denied. The Court

did not make any findings of fact that the allegation

of spoliation of evidence claim had been previously 2

decided in either civil action 00-591 or 02-5948.

After the orders were issued, the petitioners

modified the State Court complaint. The removed all

the allegations against the County of Hudson except

the spoliation of evidence during civil action 00-591

claim. The petitioners then filed a new motion for

leave to amend the complaint.

The defendants responded by filing a third motion in

the United States District Court. Once again, the

motion was filed under docket number 02-5948.

The defendants asked the Court to hold the

petitioners in contempt of the order issued on

January 4, 2006 enjoining them from pursuing

claims against Hudson County in any Court. In

response, the petitioners withdrew the allegations

against Hudson County pending appeal. Despite the

withdrawal, the District Court found the petitioners

to be in contempt of its order. The Court would later

order the petitioners to pay $35,000 in legal fees and

costs to defendants.

The petitioners appealed the orders issued by the

United States District Court. The Third Circuit

denied the appeal. The Court ignored petitioners’

argument that the District Court failed to make any

findings of fact concerning the spoliation of evidence

issue being previously decided. In fact, the Circuit

Court failed to make any findings of fact to support

its own order.

The petitioners argue that it is not appropriate to

avoid unpopular decisions by ignoring arguments

presented to it especially if the action violates a

parties right to due process in a State Court

proceeding. The permanent injunction issued by the

3

District Court clearly violates the anti-injunction act,

as the allegation of spoliation of evidence against the

County of Hudson was never previously decided.

The petitioners filed a motion for an en banc

hearing. The motion was denied and the Appellate

Court did not address the District Court’s failure to

make findings of fact on the issue of spoliation of

evidence involving Hudson County. It is for this

reason that the petitioners file for a writ certiorari.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

The District Court and The Appellate Court

Have Violated 28 U.S.C.A. 2283 (1 Stat 76)

The petitioners filed a complaint against the

County of Hudson in New Jersey’s Superior Court.

The complaint alleged that the County of Hudson

engaged in spoliation of evidence during an earlier

Federal proceeding in the United States District

Court for the District of New Jersey.

Prior to filing the complaint in New Jersey’s

Superior Court, the petitioners had two complaints

dismissed in the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey.

The complaints were filed under docket 00-591

and 02-5948. The complaint under docket number

02-5948 was presided over by Judge Dennis

Cavanaugh. The complaint under docket number

00-591 was presided over by Judge William

Bassler. The complaint filed in New Jersey

Superior Court alleges that the spoliation of

evidence occurred during civil action 00-591.

The defendants in the State action moved for

summary judgment. The motion was denied.

Rather than appeal this decision in State Court,

the defendants petitioned the United States

District Court for relief. They also asked the

District Court to issue a permanent injunction

against the petitioners from pursuing claims

against a Michael Dermody and the County of

Hudson. The petition was filed under docket

number 00-591. Judge William Bassler issued an

order partially granting the request (G). 5

The Court enjoined petitioners from pursuing

allegations against Michael Dermody but not the

County of Hudson. The order was issued under the

relitigation exception of the Anti-Injunction Act.

After discovery in the State Court proceeding

the petitioners modified their complaint and they

filed for leave to amend it. The defendants

immediately filed another petition with the District

Court to enjoin the petitioners from proceeding

with claims against Hudson County in the State

Court under the relitigation exception to the Anti-

Injunction Act. However this time the application

was filed under docket number 02-5948. Judge

Dennis Cavanaugh issued a permanent injunction

against the petitioners from proceeding against the

County of Hudson with any claims in any Federal

or State Court (E).

The order issued on January 4, 2006 violates 28

U.S.C.A. 2283. “A Court of the United States may

not grant an injunction to stay proceeding in a

State Court except as expressly authorized by an

act of Congress; or when necessary in aid of its

jurisdiction or to protect and effectuate its

judgments”. 28 U.S.C.A. 2283, the third exception

is known as the “relitigation exception”. National

R.R. Passenger Corp. v Pa. R.R. Pub Util. Comm,

342 F3d 242, 255 (34 Cir 2003). The relitigation

exception was designed to allow Federal Courts to

prevent State Courts from deciding an issue that

was previously decided in Federal Court. Chick

Kam Choo v_ Exxon Corp, 486 U.S. 140, 147-48

(1988).

6

During a Show Cause hearing on November 28,

2005, the petitioners provided clear and concise

evidence demonstrating that the allegation of

fraudulent concealment or spoliation of evidence

had never been previously decided during civil

action 00-591. They also argued that the question

was never previously decided by Judge William

Bassler (H). Despite this information, the Court

issued a permanent injunction pursuant to the

relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act on

January 4, 2006 (E).

The Court never indicated how it determined

that the spohation of evidence allegation was

previously decided in civil action 00-591. A review

of the earlier opinion demonstrates that indeed, the

issue was never previously decided (F). Chick Kam

Choo emphasized that claims must be actually

litigated in Federal Court to qualify for the

relitigation exception. Chick Kam Choo, 486 U.S. at

148. Chick Kam Choo has been interpreted by

commentators Wright, Miller and Cooper as

requiring a narrow reading of the relitigation

exception.

“There can be no Federal injunction against

State Court proceedings based on a claim

preclusive or issue preclusive effect of a formal

judgment unless the judgment has actually decided

the claim or issue in question. It requires an

assessment of the precise state of the record and of

what the earlier order actually said”. Wright, Miller

and Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, 4226

(Supp 1977). The District Court made no such

assessment. 7

The Statute was one of the first passed by

Congress. Congress passed the Anti-Injunction

Statute in 1793. One “Supreme Court” was created

by the Constitution and Congress was given power

to create other Federal Courts. In the first

Congress this power was exercised and a system of

Federal trial and Appellate Courts with lhmited

jurisdiction were created by the Judiciary Act of

1789; 1 Stat 76; Atlantic Coast line R.R. Co. v

Locomotive Engineers, 398, U.S. 281, 287 (1970).

While the lower Courts were given certain powers

in the 1789 Act, they were not given power to

review directly cases from State Court and they

have not been given such powers since that time.

The District Court of New Jersey and the Appellate

Court of the Third Circuit are setting a dangerous

precedent for accepting cases that are clearly

within the junsdiction of the State Court. As a

matter of fact, the United States Courts do not even

recognize an allegation of spoliation of evidence as

a separate tort if detected after a final judgment

has been entered and time has lapsed, Kolanovic v

Gida, 77 Supp 2d 595, 601 (D.N.J. 1999). Although

New Jersey Courts take the same position on a

spoliation of evidence allegation, they will allow a

fraudulent concealment claim to be maintained.

Rosenblitt v Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391 (2001).

On its face, the present act is an absolute

prohibition against enjoining State Court

proceedings unless the injunction falls within one

of three specifically defined exceptions. The

Supreme Court has held, “The Anti-Injunction Act

is not a statute conveying broad general policy 8

for appropriate ad hoc application, legislative policy

is here expressed in a clear-cut prohibition

qualified only by specifically defined exceptions.”

Amaglamated Clothing Workers v Richmond Bros,

348 U.S. 511, 515, 516 (1955). Moreover, since the

statutory prohibition against such injunctions in

part rests on the fundamental constitutional

independence of the States and their Courts, the

exceptions should not be enlarged by loose

statutory construction. Proceedings in State Court

should be allowed to continue unimpaired by

intervention of the local Federal Courts, with relief

from error, if any, through the State Appellate

Courts and ultimately, the United States Supreme

Court.

The United States District Court and the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals interfered with the

constitutional independence of the State and its’

citizens. The permanent injunction issued by the

Court does not satisfy any of the _ specifically

defined exceptions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A 2283.

The issue of spoliation of evidence against the

County of Hudson was never previously decided by

the Federal Court. The defendants in the State

Court proceeding simply circumvented the decision

by the State Court and a Federal Court of

competent jurisdiction to get the results they

wanted, a very dangerous precedent that must be

rejected by this Court.

No Findings of Fact

The United States District Court did not make

any findings of fact concerning evidence of a

Federal decision on the allegation against the

County of Hudson for spoliation of evidence during

civil action 00-591. The obvious reason is that there

is no evidence. A review of the opinion issued on

January 31, 2001, under docket number 00-591,

clearly demonstrates this. The District Court

scheduled a Show Cause hearing on November 28,

2005 to determine whether it would issue a

permanent injunction enjoining the petitioners

from pursuing the spoliation of evidence claim

against the County of Hudson in New Jerseys’

Superior Court pursuant to the _ relitigation

exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. The

petitioners argued that there was absolutely no

evidence to indicate that the Federal Court

previously decided this allegation. (H). The Court

issued the injunction anyway (E). The Court did so

without even addressing the allegation of spohation

of evidence issue. Because there was no evidence to

support its decision, the Court ignored the issue

and made no findings of fact.

The United States District Court must make

findings of fact in accordance with Fed R Civ P 52.

“In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or

with an advisory jury, the Court shall find the facts

specifically and state separately its conclusions of

law therein, and judgment shall be entered

pursuant to rule 58; and in granting or refusing

interlocutory injunctions the Court shall similarly

set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law

which constitute the grounds for its actions...

{emphasis supplied] Fed R Civ P 52. 10

Because the District Court did not make any

findings of fact in its January 4, 2006

opinion/order, the petitioners modified the State

Court complaint and filed for leave to amend it.

The petitioners left only the spohation of evidence

claim against Hudson County during civil action

OO-591 in it.

Once again, the defendants petitioned the

United States District Court for relief. This time

they asked the Court to hold the petitioners in

contempt for violating the January 4, 2006 order. A

preliminary hearing was held on May 18, 2006 (1).

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that the

spoliation of evidence claim filed in State Court had

never been decided in a Federal Court. The Court

scheduled a Show Cause hearing anyway. The

hearing was scheduled for June 22, 2006 (J).

During the hearing, the petitioners advanced their

arguments in detail with supporting evidenc 8

There was no question that the spoliation wu

evidence claim against Hudson County had never

been previously decided. Despite the undisputed

evidence, the Court found the petitioners to be in

contempt of the January 4, 2006 order (C). The

opinion issued on July 10, 2006 did not indicate

that the spoliation of evidence claim was previously

decided by a Federal Court once again. The Court

refused to make any findings of fact on this issue.

In all cases heard in the State of New Jersey,

the trial Court is obliged to state clearly its factual

findings and correlate them with the relevant legal

conclusions. Kenwood Assoc. v Bd _ of Adj _ of

Englewood, 141 N.J. Super 1 (App Div 1976); State

v Singletary, 165 N.J. Super 421, 424-25 (App Div),

1

Certif Denied, 81 N.J.50 (1979); Wertlake v

Wertlake, 137 N.J. Super 476, 485-86 (App Div

1975) Blaisdell Lumber Co v_ Holton, 242 N.J.

Super 98, 102 (App Div 1990). The District Court

did not make findings of fact because there is no

evidence to support its opinion that the spoliation

of evidence claim in New Jersey’s Superior Court

was previously decided in Federal Court.

The opinion issued on January 31, 2001, during

civil action 00-591 by Judge William Bassler,

speaks volumes (F). The District Court was obliged

to review it prior to making a determination. There

can be no Federal injunction against State Court

proceedings based on a claim preclusive or issue

preclusive effect of a Federal judgment has actually

decided the claim or issue in question. It requires

an assessment of the precise state of the record and

of what the earlier opinion/order actually said”

Wright, Miller, Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedures 4226 (Supp 1997). The Court could not

have conducted the required assessment since it is

abundantly clear that the issue and claim was

never previously decided.

The District Court failed to articulate its

findings of fact and correlate them with relevant

legal conclusions. Curtis v Finnerman, 83 N.J. 563,

570 (1980); See also Brochin & Sandler, Appellate

Review of Facts in New Jersey Jury and New

Jersey Cases, 12 Rutgers Law Rev 482 (1947),

Conford, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

92 N.J.L.J. (1969).

At the time the District Court issued its

contempt order on July 10, 2006, the petitioners’ 12

appeal of the January 4, 2006 order was still

pending in the Third Circuit. A briefing schedule

had not been ordered. The petitioners filed a

motion with the Appellate Clerk to amend the

appeal to include the July 10, 2006 order. The

Clerk denied the motion because the orders were

not related. The petitioners filed a motion to have

the decision reviewed by the panel.

The petitioners filed the briefs on appeal in the

Third Circuit. Among other things, the petitioners

argued that the District Court did not make any

findings of fact on the issue of spoliation of evidence

during civil action 00-591. They argued that the

District Court did not have any evidence to indicate

that this issue was previously decided by the

Federal Court and they argued that the District

Court did not conduct an assessment of the earlier

opinion/order as required. Wright, Miller, Cooper,

Federal Practice and Procedure, 4226 (Supp 1997).

The Appellate Court issued its decision on June

19, 2007. It affirmed the decision of the District

Court issued on January 4, 2006. It refused to

review the appeal of the order issued on July 10,

2006. The Appellate Court did not even address the

District Courts’ failure to make findings of fact on

the main issue in this case (B).

In response, the petitioners filed a motion for an

en banc hearing. The Court did not allow the re-

hearing (A).

It is for this precise reason that the District

Court is required to make findings of fact. The

District Court simply ignored the _ petitioners’

arguments that the claim against Hudson County

in New Jersey’s Superior Court was never decided,

3

in the Federal Courts, and then issued a

permanent injunction under the pretense that the

issue was previously decided by the Federal Court.

The petitioners ask this Court to remand this

order back to the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey and assigned to Judge

Wilham Bassler, the Judge that issued the original

opinion and order in civil action 00-591. The

petitioners ask this Court to remand this matter

back to this Court with instructions. The Court

should be required to indicate by reference, when

the issue of spoliation of evidence against Hudson

County was decided during civil action 00-591. The

petitioners allege that the County of Hudson

ordered its corporate counsel to withhold evidence

and misrepresent himself to a judge during civil

action 00-591. The final order in this matter was

issued on January 31, 2001 (F). The evidence

supporting this claim did not surface until 2005. It

is axiomatic that the issue was never decided by

the Federal Courts. The Courts should not be

allowed to ignore arguments in order to avoid

making unpopular’ decisions. Such notions

compromise the integrity of our judicial system,

and this could have serious implications to the

trust that citizens have for our Courts.

Did The Permanent Injunction Issued by the

District Court Violate Petitioners’ Right To

Due Process in New Jersey’s Superior Court?

The petitioners have already demonstrated that

the allegation of spoliation of evidence was never

previously decided during civil action 00-591 (F 1-

14

13). They have also demonstrated that the District

Court issued two separate orders suggesting that

this issue was previously decided (E-C). However,

the opinion does not disclose how the Court reaches

this position (E-C). On the other hand, the

petitioners presented numerous documents during

evidentiary hearings to establish that this claim

was never previously htigated in Federal Court (H-

I). The Court issued its permanent injunction

without making any findings of fact on the

spoliation of evidence issue (E). It issued its

contempt order without making any findings of fact

on the spoliation of evidence issue (C). The Court

simply ignored the issue presented by petitioners

as though it was never discussed. There is

absolutely no evidence in this case to indicate that

the Federal Court previously decided the spoliation

of evidence claim against Hudson County during

civil action 00-591. In fact, the County of Hudson

was not named in the case under docket 00-591.

The relitigation exception only allows Federal

Courts to enjoin issues of claims that were

previously decided in a Federal Court. Texas

Commerce Bank Nat'l Assn v Florida, 138 F 3d

179, 182 (5t* Cir 1998); quoting_Chick Kam Choo,

486 ct 146. The claim of spoliation of evidence was

never decided by the Federal Courts.

The petitioners obtained the information

supporting this claim’ through’ depositions

conducted in July and September of 2005. The final

order under docket number 0-591 was issued on

January 31, 2001 (fF). The petitioners could not

have filed a complaint alleging spoliation of

evidence in the Federal Court since the Federal

Court does not recognize spoliation of evidence as a

separate tort if detected after the final judgment

has been entered and time has lapsed. Kalanovic v

Gida, 77 Supp 2d 595, 601 (D.N.J. 1999). Where as

the State of New Jersey allows a party to allege

spohation of evidence as a separate tort if it is

maintained under the allegation of fraudulent

concealment. Rosenblitt v Zimmerman, 166-N.J.-

391 (2001).

The petitioners filed a complaint against the

County of Hudson in New Jersey’s Superior Court

alleging spoliation of evidence. The complaint

withstood a motion for summary judgment. The

District Court stopped petitioners from pursuing

this claim in New Jersey’s Superior Court under

false pretense. The petitioners had a right to be

heard. The District Court denied petitioners this

right. Due process is the opportunity to be heard at

a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Mathews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S Ct

893, 902 (1976); Armstrong v Manzo, 380 U.S. 545,

552, 85 S. Ct 1187, 1191 (1965).

The permanent injunction issued by the District

Court denied petitioners this most basic right.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons indicated above, the petition for

a writ of centiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

gallon

Py. C292 _

Eileen Gilgallon

October 23, 2007