Friday, August 27, 2010


The City was been WARNED by the State to pass a budget or Council could face fines.  The fine part sounds great, but unless a budget is passed by September 24, the City's bond rating could be negatively affected.  See S.L. article here.

Back in March, Gov. Christie, during his budget speech, warned towns to "Get your act together and get it together now".  He wasn't kidding.

One area Council should focus on is why some litigation drags on and on  For example, Linden taxpayers have paid over a million dollars in attorney fees on a lawsuit,  Strategic Alliance Group, et al vs. City of Linden, et al. that began in 2003.  A very troubling  Report was issued by the United States District Court.

From the Report::

  • "The City also stated that it would file a Motion to Enforce Settlement against the LaVans by the end of July. While no motion was filed in July, on December 8, 2008 the City moved to enforce its settlement agreement with the LaVans.Strategic Alliance Group, et al vs. City of Linden, et al."
  • "Here neither the City nor the LaVans moved to reopen this matter within the 90 days provided by ¶1 of the Court’s Order of Dismissal."
  • "Similarly, neither the City nor the LaVans ever made a request that the 90 day period set forth in ¶1 of the Court’s Order be extended.Instead, over 9 months or 270 days elapsed before any party informed the Court that there was an issue with the settlement reached in this matter."
  • While the City may have believed that the matter was settled and that therefore there was no reason to move to reopen the case in accordance with ¶1, the City fails to explain why, when it became apparent that the settlement would not be consummated within 90 days, it failed to request that the 90 day period be extended."
  • "Instead, nearly two years after the Order of Dismissal was entered, the City filed the instant Motion to Enforce and the LaVans’ opposed same."
  • "With respect to counsel’s Certifications, the Court finds that in addition to statements of facts, certain portions of Steven J. Eisenstein and Paul A. Sandars, III’s Certifications filed in  reply to the City’s Motion to Enforce Settlement contain factual arguments that are inappropriate under L.Civ.R. 7.2(a). (See, e.g., ¶¶ 5, 9 and 11 (among others) of the Eisenstein and Sandars’ Certifications).

The certifications the Court was referring to were those of Linden's overtaxed taxpayers' lawyers. 

Instead of firing this law firm, Linden Council recently voted to throw another $10,000 to these lawyers.  Why?  It's not hard to figure out what is going on here and it's no bargain.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Re" Linden's incompetent counsel in this lawsuit: Look back and see who they are "friends" with and you'll understand why they weren't fired...

It's all about how they can continue to keep these cases going on and on so they can keep collecting $$. They have no desire to settle these cases quickly or inexpensively on behalf of their stupid tax paying clients!