Claims Trimmed in Ex-Judge Carlia Brady's Malicious Prosecution Lawsuit Against Woodbridge Police
The ruling allows the embattled former judge to proceed on narrower grounds with her claim that she was unlawfully arrested in 2013.
April 20, 2020 at 02:46 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Newark has dismissed all but two of the 10 claims in a wrongful arrest suit filed by Carlia Brady against the Woodbridge Police Department.
The ruling allows the embattled former judge to proceed, on narrower grounds, with her claim that she was unlawfully arrested in 2013 for allegedly harboring her fugitive ex-boyfriend.
U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton denied a motion to dismiss claims for malicious prosecution and punitive damages, rejecting Woodbridge's argument that those claims were barred under collateral estoppel because they were fully litigated under an Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct proceeding.
Collateral estoppel applies where the identical issue was adjudicated in an earlier proceeding, but the issue before the ACJC was not the same as the one raised in the present case, Wigenton said. The ACJC was focused solely on whether Brady committed ethical violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is not the same as the malicious prosecution issue raised in her lawsuit, Wigenton said.
"[T]he ACJC explicitly stated that it took 'no position on the merits' of the dismissal of the hindering charges against plaintiff or on the state's assertion that it lacked sufficient evidence to prove [plaintiff's] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Wigenton wrote in the ruling made public Friday. Thus, the sole issue that was adjudicated before the ACJC—whether plaintiff violated the Code of Judicial Conduct—is not 'identical' to the issue of malicious prosecution that defendants seek to preclude from litigation in this matter."
However, the remaining counts were beyond the two-year statute of limitations, Wigenton said. They include counts for municipal liability, conspiracy, supervisory liability, negligent hiring and retention, race or gender discrimination, conspiracy with racial animus, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Wigenton said the statute of limitations expired in June 2015.
At the latest, the limitations period began to run on Sept. 6, 2013, when Brady's attorney filed an initial notice of claim for damages with the township of Woodbridge, which claimed employees of the police department were liable for her "false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, violation of New Jersey's Constitution and Civil Rights Laws as well as numerous other torts," Wigenton said.
Brady's seven-year judicial term ended on April 5, and she has not been nominated for another. Brady was arrested shortly after she took a position on the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County in 2013.
A charge of official misconduct against Brady was thrown out in 2016 after a judge ruled prosecutors failed to show her attempts to notify police of her ex-boyfriend's whereabouts were insufficient. The Appellate Division affirmed that ruling in 2017.
Brady was cleared in 2018 when the two remaining counts of hindering apprehension were dismissed at the request of the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office just as a jury was being selected. The charges were withdrawn after the Appellate Division ruled that her ex-boyfriend and the sole witness, Jason Prontnicki, could not be compelled to testify against Brady.
But soon after Brady was cleared of criminal charges, the ACJC filed a formal complaint seeking her removal from the bench, based on, according to Brady, the fabricated evidence and malicious charges by the Woodbridge police. The New Jersey Supreme Court has indicated it will not remove Brady from the bench but has yet to have a say on what discipline is warranted.
Brady's suit against Woodbridge, filed in September 2019, claims the department tampered with evidence in the case and that its officers were motivated by gender bias and racial animus. Brady is an Asian-American of Filipino descent.
Brady's lawyer, Tracey Hinson of Hinson Snipes in Princeton, said she was reviewing the ruling and weighing her next steps. The lawyer for Woodbridge, Frederick Rubenstein of James P. Nolan & Associates in Woodbridge, did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Woodbridge also did not respond.
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
© 2025 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 AllRetiring AOC Director Judge Glenn A. Grant Walks Away From Judiciary 'Tremendously Impressed' by New Jersey's Judges
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Knowledge of Mismatch:' Fed Judge Offers Guidance on How to Hold Banks Accountable for Erroneous Transfers
- 2PAGA Claims Must Now Be 'Headed'
- 3Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 4'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
- 5'Careless Execution' of Presidential Pardons Freed Convicted Sex Trafficker, US Judge Laments
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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