It’s over — for now.
Remember the Ted Mattox lawsuit against the municipality? Town manager Joe Hartnett informed Baristanet that the judge has granted the Township’s motion to dismiss the Mattox case and has denied all of his claims against the township. The court found no malice in actions of the council against Mattox; Mattoz requests for reimbursement of legal fees ( he represented himself) were denied. Mattox did get this (from the court order):
Pursuant to the prevailing law of New Jersey, specifically the Open Public Records Act, this court orders that the Township of Montclair disclose the records documenting legal fees associated with this litigation.
The case is over, unless of course, Ted Mattox appeals it. Mattox tells the Montclair Times that he might.
Too bad it wasn’t dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit, where the plaintiff has to reimburse the defendant’s court costs.
Amazing… First he sues the town to “save it money” (which cost the town money by way of legal fees)and then he sues the town to get money from it (costing even more legal fees). Having failed that, he’s now thinking about appealing the results which will cost the town even more legal fees!
Say what you want about Mayor Fried, but I am so very glad that Ted isn’t the mayor right now. He’s clearly disturbed (or at the very least petty and vindictive).
It is time for Mattox to fade off into the sunset…
For someone that likes to speak out about how much money the Municipality spends, he certainly doesn’t mind taking money from the Municipality!!
Ridiculous at this point…when will he go away already?!?!?
Ted Mattox – whatever the merits of his various arguments, did not appear to be a team player. His lawsuits were ample reason not to vote for him, as they have cost the Town and Council much time and money and do not appear to have served any valid purpose other than his own vindictiveness.
GNM,
No to be too picky, but didn’t the Town just LOOSE a law suit against Plofker/Herrod over the Church Street parking lot? It was a “tiny” article in the Montclair Times. How much did THAT Township instigated lawsuit cost the taxpayers?
His lawsuits were ample reason not to vote for him, as they have cost the Town and Council much time and money and do not appear to have served any valid purpose other than his own vindictiveness.
He PREVAILED in the main suit, where a judge ruled that the contracts in question should NOT have been awarded on a no-bid basis. People like to overlook the fact that our leaders were operating in ways that were not within the bounds set by law and that it took Mattox’s suit to bring that to light.
This suit was him overreacting to the counterclaims brought by the town, which in and of themselves were a waste of time and money.
Thanks apple. I don’t know why people are so quick to defend the town in all this. Mattox may be an objectionable pain in the neck, but he’s a monster ultimately created by our governors and their policies.
I have no idea why Mattox’s suits are being dissed. He always looked well dressed to me.
Apple,
While I agreed with his going after the town for the no-bid contracts, everything that has happened since has been a childish wase of money.
The no-bid contract was for something in the neighborhood of $700k. How much has the town spent in legal fees over the course of 3 trials (4 if he appeals)?
Hiding,
That case has nothing to do with this ongoing series of cases.
Though, I guess the argument could be made that if Mattox had won the election the case you cite would have never happened. Seeing as Ted & Plofker are bestest buds, after all.
It could also be argued that he wouldn’t have sued the town for reimbursement of his legal fees… just taken the money out of the town’s wallet directly.
Good grief!
Mattox’s initial suit was that the awarding of the MEDC’s contract, under a terminology called “EUS,” was improper. Under that form of contracting you are saying no other organization can do the same thing, because the task is so unique.
The amount the MEDC got was $40K, not $700K.
In the process the MEDC was disassembled and is gone. No economic development organization in Montclair at at time when we’re trying so hard to get things going in town! And, oh, by the way, they certainly did have a very talented and valuable network of volunteers for that $40K.
As to HIB’s comment, HIB is referring to ANOTHER law suit, recently settled, having to due with the Church Street Parking lot. In that suit, the town didn’t prevail but we were able to work out an amicable settlement, although we lost the revenue we were receiving when the town operated the lot.
Cary,
Thanks for the correction. I was trying to go off of memory instead of actually looking up the number.
Makes Ted’s follow-up suits all the more ludicrous.
(But, what the heck was $700k? Or maybe my brain just pulled that out of nowhere.)
The Wayfinding Sign proposal was for $750K or therabouts. At one point, that was part of the lawsuit, but the project was dropped by the town.
Cary Africk
Makes Ted’s follow-up suits all the more ludicrous.
The town played silly hardball, bringing a load of half-baked counterclaims (which did not prevail). It sure looked like they were trying to F with him — certainly not to the point where he would win attorney’s fees for their counterclaims (i.e., a flimsy legal basis is enough to keep a court from awarding attorneys’ fees in a case like this). Nonetheless, they were responding with all guns blazing when they were CLEARLY wrong in the first place about cozy, no-bid procedures. In my personal opinion, the counterclaims were pretty much a SLAPP suit.
Cary, I think its great to have an economic development body (if effective), but it’s even more important for our town to operate entirely legally.
appletony for mayor.
First, why should the MEDC be “disassembled and gone?” They can bid on projects. The MAC, also part of the losing side of the lawsuit, just bid unopposed on a project. Why couldn’t the MEDC do the same.
The $750k (estimate) was for the wayfinding project. It was part of the original lawsuit. The council dropped the project the Tuesday council meeting after the lawsuit was delivered. If you remember, Pegi Adam previously brought a long petition list to the town against the project. she was ignored. By coincidence, the project was dropped just days after the lawsuit was delivered. There was discussion on the watercooler and/or baristanet after Mayor Remsen made mention of discussing this with some, but not all, members of the council over the weekend, possibly in violation.
This case was due to the countersuit by the town after the Mattox lawsuit. Some would say the vindictive countersuit. The new council has been trying to have the case dismissed, which it just was.
The town did, as Appletony mentioned, play silly hardball. They could easily have just put the projects up for bid, and the MEDC and MAC may very well have been the only bidders. The council did choose to use taxpayer money to let this go to court. They also choose to use taxpayer money, without benefit of a public vote, to file the counterclaim, which they later asked to have dismissed.
And as a reminder, many members of the council and the town attorney had strong ties to the groups that were receiving the no-bid contracts.
busted!
mv07042
Weren’t you Teddy’s finance manager – for his last campaign?
Can you explain why Teddy would appeal this decision and cost the town more money?
Do we know how much the town paid to protect the taxpayers from Teddy’s lawsuit(s)? I say taxpayers because in reality he sued you and me! We pay the freight!
If a possible violation of the sunshine laws was discovered why didn’t Teddy pursue that and make the then town council start obeying them?
Wouldn’t it just have been a matter of reporting the incident to the New Jersey Government Records Council who enforces the provisions of OPRA and filing an OPMA violation with the Superior Court?
N.J.S.A.
10:4-17. Violations; penalty; statement at meeting of nonconformance; inclusion in minutes
Any person who knowingly violates any of the foregoing sections of this act shall be fined $100.00 for the first offense and no less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 for any subsequent offense, recoverable by the State by a summary proceeding under the “Penalty Enforcement Law” (N.J.S. 2A:58-1 et seq.). The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce said penalty upon complaint of the Attorney General or the county prosecutor. Whenever a member of a public body believes that a meeting of such body is being held in violation of the provisions of this act, he shall immediately state this at the meeting together with specific reasons for his belief which shall be recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Whenever such a member’s objections to the holding of such meeting are overruled by the majority of those present, such a member may continue to participate at such meeting without penalty provided he has complied with the duties imposed upon him by this section.
L.1975, c. 231, § 12. Amended by L.1991, c. 91, §217; L.1994, c. 58, §41.
from the Montclair Times – 3/26/09
“Former councilman Ted Mattox wants the township to apologize to him for allegedly smearing his reputation in claims made to counter Mattox’s 2006 lawsuit against municipal officials, Mattox told a Superior Court judge last week.
Mattox is looking for “personal vindication,” as well as financial reimbursement for legal fees resulting from the suit and the township’s counterclaim, he said.”
Sounds like personal vindictiveness to me.
Hiding,
for someone who complains about “personal vindictiveness” you sure have a NASTY HABIT of trying to “out” people on message boards!!
If a possible violation of the sunshine laws was discovered why didn’t Teddy pursue that and make the then town council start obeying them?
What do you mean “if a possible violation … was discovered”? A court definitively found violations, period. But for the council doing things inappropriately, and failing to correct its behavior when the topic was broached, none of this would have happened.
Is this guy still around? He has way too much time on his hands. Appletony – you can’t be suggesting that if someone is sued, like the Town, they have to cave and can’t fight back. Putting allegations into a complaint that are not true subjects you to frivolous lawsuit and the court didn’t rule that the Town’s claims were frivolous. From what I have read and observed about Mattox, the Town’s counterclaims probably had more credence than his did.
No applezapft – no court found violations of the Sunshine Act. No court found them because Teddy chose not to report them. Teddy chose to sue the town (read YOU AND ME) for money instead.
“rational” – Mattox prevailed in his suit, but did not prevail in trying to get an award of attorney’s fees.
Hiding – suing our government is at times necessary if the government isn’t operating legally. Mattox sued about improper process and no bid contracts. HE WON. The suit helped stop the $750K wayfinding debacle, which saved far more than the cost of the town throwing an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink counterclaim at Mattox (which, by the way, he PREVAILED against). This loss by Mattox is merely a loss at the long-shot attempt to get an award of attorneys’ fees, which is hardly ever a winner in U.S. courts (but is often the norm in other common law jurisdictions). I still maintain that your regular habit of trying to “out” people on these boards is exceptionally ugly behavior.
For more of the nastiness of HidinginBaristaville, tune into the watercooler where she serves as a moderator, or Montclair unmoderated where the list is littered with her insane posts.
Correct, Mattox did prevail in his suit, and the town council did fail in it’s counter suit, which was just dismissed.
Applezapft,
Are you saying that he’s gay and that’s why he didn’t want the Sunshine Law upheld? What would his sexual orientation have to do with it?
I have no “regular” mor “irregular” habits here. And several times mv07042 has attempted to irroneously describe who I am.
I do think that it’s interesting to know whether he is the same mv07042 who helped run Teddy’s campaign. Sorry you don’t- is it because you were part of the THRIVE campaign as well?
Ahh, trying to tar a poster that disagrees with her as a homophobe, even thought the post has nothing to do with it. Seen it before here and on the unmoderated list. Get back on the meds, as your friends on unmoderated have pleaded with you to do. Some things never change.
Again, point was Mattox won his suit, and the town lost the counter suit. It’s really not difficult to understand.
See there you go again evilempire. Insisting that I am someone that I am not.
I don’t litter. I respect the earth. I also don’t “serve” anything whether on the watercooler or not.
I’d still like to know why you are insisting that Maddox filed a suit where he said that the town council violated the sunshine laws and that the town council lost the suit.
All lies.
Don’t post information about a personal tragedy in your family here and on the other lists and not expect people to realize who you really are. Back to the watercooler girl.
EvilEmpire,
There you go again and again. No “personal tragedy” information has been posted here or elsewhere by me.
You and your ilk continue to say that Teddy filed some sort of lawsuit that contained claims of violations of the sunshine laws and I continue to state that those are not the facts.
What is a fact is that Teddy has filed numerous lawsuits and wants to be paid for representing himself and that a judge has dimissed his claim because he as not incurred any “true attorney’s fees”.
THRIVE failed to and rightly so.