Plaintiff Who Made Public Newark's Amazon 'HQ2' Proposal Seeks Fee Award
The City of Newark is weighing a request for legal fees from a plaintiff who successfully challenged its nondisclosure policy concerning its proposal to serve as a second headquarters city for Amazon.
April 26, 2018 at 04:25 PM
3 minute read
The City of Newark is weighing a request for legal fees from a plaintiff who successfully challenged its nondisclosure policy concerning its proposal to serve as a second headquarters city for Amazon.
On Tuesday Newark turned over its 201-page HQ2 application, with redactions on six of those pages, to requester Steven Wronko. The disclosure follows a suit filed by Wronko in February under the Open Public Records Act over the city's assertion that its application to Amazon was off-limits to the public.
CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, New Jersey, who represents Wronko, said she was not sure of the amount of legal fees at issue in the case. OPRA grants fees and costs to prevailing parties in open records suits. The settlement follows a April 20 hearing on Newark's motion to dismiss the case. On that day, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Beacham adjourned the case so the parties could hold settlement talks, Griffin said.
Newark's proposal to Amazon includes information about possible development sites, technology infrastructure and potential partnerships with local universities.
It also includes information about crime, housing, entertainment and sustainability and letters of support from community leaders.
Wronko filed suit against the city in February after his request for a copy of the city's proposal was declined by the city.
Newark had maintained that rules of the HQ2 competition required it to keep its submission confidential. It asserted in the motion for dismissal that it was entitled to the competitive advantage exception under OPRA.
Wronko maintained, however, in opposition to the motion, that Amazon's nondisclosure agreement only applies to information that Amazon disclosed to Newark, adding that the company stated that agencies should comply with public records laws. In addition, Wronko said Newark failed to provide evidence that disclosure would put it at a disadvantage. Courts have held that an agency cannot overcome OPRA's presumption of access by “simply making a conclusory statement that a record is exempt or harm will occur if a record is released.”
Newark is one of 20 finalists in the HQ2 competition, which is expected to bring 50,000 high-paying jobs and $5 billion in construction to the location the company selects to partner with its Seattle headquarters. Although several other New Jersey cities and towns applied, Newark's application had the support of former Gov. Chris Christie and the Legislature, which offered $7 billion in financial incentives.
The redacted portions of the Newark proposal pertain to the financial incentives, Griffin said.
Griffin said some other finalist cities put their application materials online from the outset of the process. “That builds pride and buy-in from residents. The people of Newark were completely excluded, but we are happy that they can now be part of the process,” he said in a statement.
Griffin said the application disclosed the existence of a promotional website made on behalf of Newark's application, www.yesnewark.com.
“Evidently the city hired a PR firm to create the site and market Newark, but the fact that no one really knows about that site makes me wonder whether we got the most bang for our buck. Certainly Boston and D.C. utilized their websites much more effectively,” she said in an e-mail.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Samora Noguera, who represents Newark in the case, said the city would not comment on the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppellate Division Strikes Down Government Records Council's Regulation During Pending Denial-of-Access Complaint
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250