NJ, Port Authority Want ‘Bridgegate’ Class Actions Dismissed

Last week, the state of New Jersey and the Port Authority in New York and New Jersey filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action lawsuits filed over the alleged “Bridgegate” scandal involving the closure of the George Washington Bridge in September 2013.

The Bridgegate class action lawsuit stems from public records compiled by news media alleging that state officials closed the lanes as a part of a political scheme that would affect Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich and Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, both Democrats in a state run by Republican Gov. Chris Christie. Hundreds of thousands of motorists were reportedly left stranded due to the lane closures.

The motion to dismiss the Bridgegate class action lawsuits argues that the lead plaintiffs have failed to adequately back up their allegations that the defendants engaged in conspiracy and racketeering.

Other defendants, including the former Port Authority Director and one of Gov. Christie’s former campaign managers filed separate motions to dismiss the Bridgegate class action lawsuit.

The state of New Jersey contended in its motion to dismiss the Bridgegate class action lawsuits that the plaintiffs can’t state any valid claim against them because Gov. Christie and other current and former officials deny prior knowledge and involvement.

The motions to dismiss bring up other arguments, including that the state has sovereign immunity and therefore cannot be sued for civil rights claims. The state also contends that the plaintiffs have not established that a pattern of racketeering occurred and that the Governor’s staff was involved in racketeering activities.

The Port Authority contends that the Bridgegate class action lawsuits’ claims are “are purely conclusory and are unaccompanied by the requisite level of factual detail to make out legally cognizable claims” against the agency. “Indeed, at no point in the complaint do plaintiffs differentiate among the various defendants with respect to any alleged acts of wrongdoing; rather, all defendants are lumped together in conclusory fashion.”

According to the brief written by Chris Christie for Governor Inc. (CCFG), “The [consolidated class action amended complaint] provides no details concerning CCFG’s particular involvement in the purported ‘conspiracy’ or any facts related to the times, locations, participants or substance of any activities by CCFG.” The organization continue, “The [consolidated amended complaint] also does not state how CCFG purportedly assisted — or could have otherwise prevented — the alleged closures carried out by defendant Port Authority of New Jersey/New York.”

The state also argued that the plaintiffs’ proposed Class of those stuck in traffic and delayed by the closures is not tenable in its motion to dismiss the Bridgegate class action lawsuits.

A federal investigation of “Bridgegate” has been initiated. Christie and other government representatives contended that the lane closures were a part of a legitimate traffic study until documents revealed by the news media indicated they may have been started as a political move against Fort Lee’s mayor. There was a public outcry after these documents came to light.

Plaintiff Zachary Galicki is represented by Rosemarie Arnold. The GW Car Service LLC plaintiffs are represented by Barry D. Epstein and Michael J. Epstein of The Epstein Law Firm PA.

The Chris Christie Bridgegate Class Action Lawsuits are Zachary Galicki, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 14-cv-00169, and GW Car Service LLC v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01319, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.