NJSPCA Subject to Open Records Law, NJ Court Rules
The New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals must comply with the Open Public Records Act despite its status as a private, nonprofit group, a state appeals court ruled Friday in a published decision.
January 26, 2018 at 03:32 PM
4 minute read
The New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals must comply with the Open Public Records Act despite its status as a private, nonprofit group, a state appeals court ruled Jan. 26 in a published decision.
The appeals court upheld a trial judge's ruling that the NJSPCA must comply with a request for records relating to the group's takeover of an animal shelter in Middlesex County, New Jersey, and pay the requester's legal fees and costs of $42,147 related to the inquiry. The panel rejected the NJSPCA's argument that it can't be held subject to OPRA because it receives no funds from the state budget, and said it could not impose a special service charge to a records requester.
The court's ruling might not apply to the NJSPCA later in the year, when legislation taking away the group's role as enforcers of animal cruelty laws takes effect. The Legislature revamped animal cruelty laws after an October report from the State Commission of Investigation heaped criticism on the NJSPCA's management. But the ruling sheds light on obligations of quasi-public organizations under OPRA.
Plaintiff Collene Wronko sued the NJSPCA after getting no response to her 2014 OPRA request concerning its rescue of animals that were allegedly abused in a shelter in Helmetta. Superior Court Judge Travis Francis determined that the NJSPCA was subject to OPRA and ordered it to develop a mechanism for responding to records requests. The group's response called for charging an hourly rate for collecting and compiling documents, citing its minimal staff and meager finances. But Francis, finding that Wronko's request did not meet the statutory definition of an extraordinary expenditure of time and effort to accommodate the request, held that the shelter could not charge her a service fee.
The NJSPCA appealed, and the panel composed of Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Heidi Currier rejected the group's contention that it should not be subject to OPRA because it is not a recipient of public funding.
Currier, writing for the panel, said the NJSPCA does not receive direct funding from the state but was provided a statutory source of funding through the collection of fines and penalties assessed on violators of animal cruelty laws.
Citing the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling declaring the New Jersey State League of Municipalities an instrumentality that is subject to OPRA, the appeals court said that the NJSPCA is an instrumentality “because it functions on the State's behalf to achieve an end or purpose, namely, to prevent animal cruelty.”
“The NJSPCA was created by the legislature and is controlled by the state. In addition, the NJSPCA performs a government function by assisting state and local governments with the investigation of animal cruelty and enforcement of animal cruelty laws throughout the State,” the court said. “The NJSPCA clearly meets the definition of a public agency under OPRA.”
The panel also rejected the NJSPCA's protests over the fee award to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a prevailing party because the defendant did not deny the records request based on any legitimate exemption to OPRA, Currier wrote. And while the $42,147 fee award represents a large portion of the NJSPCA's budget, “defendant's failure to comply with court orders required further motions, briefs and court appearances,” the panel said.
The Legislature and former Gov. Chris Christie removed the job of enforcing animal cruelty laws from the NJSPCA on a recommendation from the SCI report.
“It is plain this responsibility should never have been made the domain of amateurs,” the SCI report said.
But the NJSPCA's official role dictates its duty to comply with OPRA, at least until the new law takes effect, said CJ Griffin of Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack, New Jersey, who represented Wronko.
“If the government itself creates an organization and they still exert control, it's going to be covered by OPRA,” Griffin said.
Harry Jay Levin of Levin Cyphers in Toms River, New Jersey, who represented the NJSPCA, did not respond to a phone message about 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 AllHagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Increased Cap on Workers' Comp Attorneys' Fees Benefits All New Jerseyans
7 minute readRandom Audit of Veteran Attorney Results in Admonition for Recordkeeping Deficiencies
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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