Carlia Brady.

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.

U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton

"[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.