MONMOUTH COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT
PO BOX 1269
FREEHOl,D NJ 07728
TRACK ASSIGNMENT NOTICE
COURT TELEPHONE NO. (732) 6774240
COURT HOURS 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM
DATE: AUGUST 03, 2017
RE: LOVE VS CITY OF ASBURY PARK ET AL
DOCKET: MON L 002767 17
THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO: TRACK 3.
DISCOVERY IS 450 DAYS AND RUNS FROM THE FIRST ANSWER OR 90 DAYS
FROM SERVICE ON THE FIRST DEFENDANT, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
THE PRETRIAL JUDGE ASSIGNED IS: HON LINDA G. JONES
IF YOU HAVE l'.NY QUESTIONS, CONTACT TEAM 003
AT : (732) 677-4262 EXT 42 62 .

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TRACK IS INAPPROPRIATE YOU MUST FILE A

CERTIFICATION OF GOOD CAUSE WlTHIN 30 DAYS OF TIIE FILING OF YOUR PLEADING.
PLAINTIFF MUST SERVE COPIES OF THIS FORM ON ALL OTHER PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH R.4:5A2.
ATTENTION:
ATT: GREGORY P.. NOBLE
O'CONNOR PA."IBONS I..A."l'E & NOBLE
435 EAST BROAD ST
WESTFIELD NJ 07090 -2123
JUNOBR2
 :,,.._..J, f r1 . n rr-:;-;, -1
O'CONNOR, PARSONS, LANE & NOBLE, LLC
Gregory 8. Noble, Esq. (#017601998)
435 East Broad Street
Westfield, New Jersey 07090
Phone: 908-928-9200
rr; J I r.10;..;r,1ourH V1C1NACE
1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

----<-;tv-t:.-. ----------..-
LhV!Sl( Jf, J 23(3

MARSHAWN LOVE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: /_ J7 &;1- J/
V. Civil Action

CITY OF ASBURY PARK; ASBURY

PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT; COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
ANTHONY SALERNO, JR.; JANE DOE
1-V (these names being fictitious as their ,
present identities are unknown); JOHN :
DOE 1-V (these names being fictitious as: I
their present identities are unknown); 1
I
XYZ CORPORATION 1- V (these names :
being fictitious as their present identities :
are unknown),

Defendants.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Plaintiff Marshawn Love, ("plaintiff') resides at 705 Heritage Court,

Neptune, NJ 07753, and at all times relevant hereto was employed by defendants.

2. Defendants City of Asbury Park (or the "Asbury Park Police Department"

or "APPD"),is a business with the principal business address of 1 Municipal Plaza #

1, Asbury Park, NJ 07712, which had the plaintiff in its employ during the relevant time

periods herein.
 3. Defendant, Anthony Salerno, Jr. ("Salerno") resides at 20 Gladiola Drive,

Howell, NJ 07731, and at all times relevant hereto was employed by defendant APPD

and had supervisory authority over plaintiff and/or had involvement in his demotion.

4. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants Jane Doe 1-V and John Doe

1-V are fictitious names used to identify those individuals which names are presently

unknown that engaged in wrongful acts outlined herein and their identities are

presently unknown.

5. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants XYZ Corporation 1-V are

fictitious names used to identify those corporations which names are presently

unknown but include corporations incorporated under the laws of the State of New

Jersey and/or other states and had plaintiff under their employ.

6. Plaintiff is a 43 year old African-American male.

7. Plaintiff commenced employment with the Asbury Park Police

Department on or about August 23, 1996.

8. From 1996 until 2007, Plaintiff worked his way through the ranks,

eventually being promoted to Lieutenant on or about March 9, 2007.

9. During his time spent as Sergeant, Plaintiff was supervised by Salerno, a

Captain in the Detective Bureau at the time.

10. On or about April 28, 2006, then Asbury Park police officer Jessenia

DaVita-Vick ("Davila-Vick") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law

Division, Monmouth. County against the Asbury Park Police Department and Captain

Anthony Salerno, alleging, amongst other things, a hostile work environmen t and

sexual harassment perpetrated by Salerno.

 11. The matter between Davila-Vick and the Department/Salerno was

settled on or about September 15, 2011, resulting in Salerno being suspended for

approximately two years. Upon information and belief, Salerno was told to have no

further contact with Davila-Vick.

12. On or about September 30, 2011, Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of

Captain.

13. On or about January 15, 2014 Davila-Vick was allegedly harassed by

Salerno, an incident she reported to Plaintiff. Plaintiff reported this incident to then

Chief Mark Kinman ("Kinmon").

14. On or about May 1, 2014, Salerno was promoted to deputy chief over

Plaintiff. It was no secret that Plaintiff desired the Police Chief title and was in line for

H(f same.
,

15 . In July 2014, then-Chief Kinman took leave time until he could officially

retire; Salerno, the highest ranking officer in the department, took over his duties.

16. In September 2014, Kinman officially retired and Salerno became acting

chief.

17. In or around late January of 2015, Salerno was investigated by the City of

Asbury Park for allegedly taking his City issued car to Florida for a personal trip. Upon j

information and belief, Salerno thought Plaintiff was involved in notifying the City of this

infraction.

18. On June 16, 2015, at approximately 11:28 am, off duty Neptune

11 Township Police Sergeant Philip Seidle shot and killed his ex-wife, Tamara Seidle,
 I!
'!
'

near the intersection of Ridge and Sewall Avenues in Asbury Park while their 7-year

old daughter was inside Philip Seidle's car just feet away.

19. Plaintiff, one of the first responding officers, removed the Seid/e's 7-year

old daughter from the crime scene at the direction of Officer Lawson, the first

responding officer, and brought her back to APPD headquarters, a mere quarter-mile

from the scene.

20. Plaintiff then returned to the scene before leaving a second time at the

direction of Captain Kelso, who directed him to bring Officer Lawson back to

headquarters.

21. The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office subsequently conducted an

investigation into the actions of the officers involved and the domestic violence history

i between Philip and Tamara Seidle.

22. On June 30, 2016, over a year after the incident occurred, the Monmouth

County Prosecutor's Office ("MCPO") released a report outlining their internal review of

law enforcement's response to the killing of Tamara Seidle on June 16, 2015.

23. The investigation conducted by the MCPO revealed that on twenty-one

(21) separate occasions, either Tamara or Philip Seidle called the Neptune Township

Police Department for police assistance. Fourteen of those twenty-one calls were

domestic violence related.

24. The investigation also revealed that after several domestic violence

incidents between Tamara and Philip Seidle, a "fitness for duty" evaluation was

conducted of Philip. The result of the evaluation was that he was "not fit for duty," and

Philip was disarmed on February 8, 2012.

;J
'
 25 . On May 2, 2012, the MCPO agreed to conditionally re-arm Philip Seidle

subject to certain conditions.

26. On March 28, 2014, after another domestic violence incident between

Philip and Tamara, an internal affairs investigation was launched by Neptune PD, and

another fitness for duty evaluation was conducted of Philip.

27. On April 2, 2014 and May 29, 2014, an evaluating physician found Seidle

fit to perform his duties, and he was not disarmed.

28. The MCPO report concluded that the fitness for duty evaluation "lacked

requisite thoroughness," primarily because it was performed prior to the completion of

the internal affairs report.

29. On August 18, 2014, after an incident between Philip Seidle and his

children involvingunwanted contact by Philip, he was again evaluated for fitness for

duty. Again, a physician concluded he was frt for duty, and he was not disarmed.

30. On April 29, 2015, yet another domestic violence call was made, this time

by Philip Seidle, and no charges were filed. The report concluded that this was the

final incident that could be characterized as a domestic violence incident.

31. The MCPO report noted that "it is common for parties who are in the

process of obtaining a divorce, or who have unresolved custody disputes after a

divorce,to contact police departments to create 'official' documentation regarding such

disputes."

32. Based upon these findings, the report outlined an "Early Warning

System" that would be implementedfor all law enforcement agencies in Monmouth

County.

11
 33. The report made no findings of fault or deficiencies on behalf of any of

:1 the lo ca l departments or on behalf of the MCPO for how they handled the domestic
'
violence reports .

34. In assessing the actions of members of the APPD and Neptune PD, the

report ultimately concluded that Plaintiff failed to take control of the scene and showed

poor judgement by leaving the scene twice while this even was ongoing. It found that

he appeared to have violated three APPD policies and procedures: conduct

l
,. unbecoming, neglect of duty and insubordinaiton, and recommended discipline by the

APPD.

35. . The report also concluded that Police Officer Lawson violated one

APPD policy and procedure for conduct unbecoming and recommended discipline by

the APPD.

1 36. On July 29, 2016, Salerno wrote a letter to Plaintiff outlining the potential
,';

administrative charges against him, as well as the recommended penalty, a demotion

of two (2) ranks (from Captain to Sergeant) and a 120 day suspension without pay.

37. On August 4, 2016, the APPD sent Plaintiff a preliminary notice of

disciplinary action, again outlining the charges and penalties he was facing.

38. On August 9, 2016, the APPD, Salerno formally charged Plaintiff with

violating N.J.A.C . 4A:2-2.3(a)(1) incompetency,,inefficiency or failure to perform

duties, (6) conduct unbecoming, (7) neglect of duty and (12) other sufficient cause, as

well as violating the APPD's rules and regulations regarding the "Rapid Response to

an Active Shooter."
 39. These charges differed slightly from the recommendations of the

Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office report, as they did not include charges of

insubordination.

40. Despite the recommendations of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's

Office, no other officers were charged, including Officer Lawson and his fellow Special

II officer, neither of whom are African-American.

41. On September 30, 2016, an administration hearing was held for the City

of Asbury Park PD v. Love to determine the outcome of the charges filed against

Plaintiff.

42. During the hearing, Salerno testified that the APPD did not conduct their

own internal investigation, essentially relying on the report authored by the Monmouth

County Prosecutor's Office.

43. Salerno also testified that he did not interview any witnesses, nor did he

review Plaintiff's file prior to charging him and making a determination as to

punishment.

44. Salerno further testified that he adopted the report and recommendations

of the MCPO.

45. On November 18, 2016, the City Manager of Asbury Park, Michael

Capabianco ("Capabianco"), issued a decision adopting the recommendation of the

Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, a two (2) rank demotion and 120 day

suspension without pay.

46. Despite the decision not containing any formal reasoning whatsoever,

Capabianco found that Plaintiff violated all four New Jersey Administrative Codes he
was charged with, but did not find he violated the APPD rules and regulations for

"Rapid Response to an Active Shooter."

47. Despite the obvious failures by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's

Office and Neptune Police Department, Plaintiff was scapegoated for the Seidle

shooting. In addition, the white officers included in the events were not adversely

affected.

48. On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff was served at his home with the final

notice of disciplinary action by Acting Deputy Chief Kelso and Lt. Mary Bulsiewicz.

49. That same day, Plaintiff visited Dr. Abeer Griggs for medical issues that

had arisen during the pendency of his case. Dr. Griggs prescribed him three weeks

medical leave to deal with these issues.

50. Plaintiff took a copy of this prescription to APPD headquarters to notify

them of his intention to take FMLA leave.

51. Upon information and belief, Salerno ordered Ofc. Newman and Lt.

Bulsiewiczto travel to Dr. Griggs' office and ask about Plaintiffs visit.

52. Upon information and belief, Acting Deputy Chief Kelso subsequently

requested the use of a gray surveillance van to conduct surveillance on Plaintiff while

he was out on FMLA leave.

53. Upon information and belief, between November 21, 2016 and

December 13, 2016, APPD Internal Affairs conducted a three week long undercover

surveillance operation on Plaintiffs residence.

 54. By letter dated January 3, 2017, Lt. Bulsiewicz indicatedthat Internal

Affairs was launching an investigation into possible policy violations regarding the Sick

Leave Policy involving Plaintiff.

55. By letter dated January 11, 2017, Plaintiff responded to each of the

allegations, outlining the ridiculous and fabricated nature of such claims.

56. On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff requested that Deputy Chief Kelso show him

his personnel file.

57. While reviewing his personnel file, it came to Plaintiff's attention that two

internal affairs dispositions were contained in his file. The same two internalaffairs

documents were also located on the department server, "PowerDMS," which was

;I available to view by the entire department.

II:
,I
58. During his meeting with Kelso, Plaintiff asked Kelso to remove the

Inte rnal Affair documents from his personnel file and from PowerDMS, which were in

violation of APPD Standards of Procedure and the Attorney General Guidelines.

59. Upon information and belief, the APPD employs approximately 100

police officers of various levels of command, approximately one-quarter to one-half of

which are minority officers.

60. Upon information and belief, during Salerno's tenure as Acting Police

Chief, approximately fourteen minority officers received discipline, the majority of

which received major discipline, including suspensions and termination.

61. During the twenty-one years Plaintiff was employed by the APPD, there

has never been an African-Americanpolice chief.

 62. Plaintiff was scapegoated for the Seidle shooting and demoted because
I
.i the APPD refused to advance African American officers and because of its desire to

block Plaintiff in his pursuit of the Police Chief position on account of his race.

FIRST COUNT

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Racial and/or National Origin Discrimination

63. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of the within

paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth at length herein.

64. Defendants are an "employer'' as defined under the lAD.

65. As set forth above, the defendants scapegoated Plaintiff despite the

failures of the MCPO and Neptune PD and demoted Plaintiff because of his race

and/or national origin in the course of a pattern and/or practice of discriminating

against African-American employees.

66. This racial and/or national origin discrimination violates the lA D.

67. Defendants failed to implementany preventive or remedial measures to

protect against racial/national origin discrimination, including, but not limited to:

a. failure to adequately train supervisory personnel;

b. failure to institute or implement effective policies or procedures

regarding racial and other discrimination and the reporting and

investigation of complaints of same;

c. failure to adequately monitor or supervise the illegal activities and

discriminatory actions of supervisory personnel;

d. failure to provide adequate training to recognize, address, rectify

and/or prevent illegal or discriminatory conduct; and

 e. failure to adequately rectify, discipline or prevent known

discriminatory conduct by supervisory personnel.

68. The conduct engaged in by the defendant constitutes egregious behavior

and/or willful indifference by upper management to the rights of Plaintiff sufficient to

, 1 subject defendant to punitive damages under the LAD and lehmman v. Toys R Us.

69. Plaintiff has been severely injured as a result of such discrimination that

he has suffered, and continues to suffer, physical and bodily injuries, severe emotional

distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, personal hardship, career and social

disruption, psychological and emotional harm, economic losses, loss employment

opportunities, and other such damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Marshawn Love, demands judgment against

l
:1 defendants, City of Asbury Park; Asbury Park Police Department; Anthony Salemo,

,t Jr.; Jane Doe 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);
John Doe 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

XYZ Corporation 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are

unknown), jointly and severally, for harm suffered as a result of defendants' racial

and/or national origin discrimination in violation of the LAD as follows:

(a) reinstatement to position of Captain;

(b) full compensation for back pay and benefits with full remuneration,

with interest;

(c) full compensation for front pay and benefits with full remuneration,

with interest;

(d) compensatory damages;

 ,,

(e) consequen tial damages;

(f) punitive damages;

(g) pre-judgment interest;

(h) attorneys' fees with appropriate enhancement under Rendine v.

Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995); and

(i) such other relief as may be available pursuant to the LAD in which

this court deems to be just and equitable.

SECOND COUNT

Conscientious Employee Protection Act

70. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every allegation of the within

paragraphs of this Complaint as if they were fully set forth at length herein.

71. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for his complaints and/or

perceived complaints concerning unethical and/or discriminatory and/or illegal

behavior of Anthony Salerno, including but not limited to sexual harassment and

improper use of a city vehicle.

72. By and through the aforementioned actions, including, but not limited to

demoting him two ranks from Captain to Sergeant and suspending him for a period of

120 days without pay, defendants violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act

("CEPA") by retaliating against Plaintiff for, among other things:

a. disclosing or threatening to disclose to a supervisor or a public

body and activity, policy or practice of the employer or another
employer, with whom there is a business relationship, that he
reasonably believed was in violation of a law, or rule or regulation
promulgated pursuant to law, and/or

b. providing information to, or testifying before, any public body

conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of
law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law by the

'l
ll
..\tl
employer or another employer, with whom there is a business
relationship and/or

c. objecting to or refusing to participate in any activity, policy or

practice which he reasonably believed was (1) in violation of a
law, or rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law and/or (2)
fraudulent or criminal, and/or (3) incompatible with a clear
mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or
welfare or protection of the environment.

73. As a result of defendants' retaliation for Plaintiffs complaints and/or

reports about and resistance and/or refusal to engage in defendants' fraudulent, illegal

and/or improper activity, including sexual harassment claims by a fellow employee

against a supervisor, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, economic loss,

harm to career, harm to reputation, bodily injury with physical manifestations, severe

emotional distress, and physical pain and suffering, as well as all other such damages

compensable under CEPA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Marshawn Love, demands judgment against

defendants , City of Asbury Park; Asbury Park Police Department; Anthony Salerno,

Jr., Jane Doe 1-V (these names being fictitious as their presentidentities are unknown);

John Doe 1-V ( these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

XYZ Corporation 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are

unknown), jointly and severally, for harm suffered as a result of defendant's violation of

CEPA as follows:

a. reinstatement to position of Captain;

b. full compensation for back pay and benefits with full remuneration,

with interest;

c. full compensation for front pay and benefits with full remuneraiton,

with interest;
 d. compensatory damages;

e. consequential damages;

f. punitive damages;

g. his attorneys' fees with appropriate enhancement under Rendine

v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995);

h. costs of suit;

i. interest; and

j. such other relief the court may deem equitable and just.

THIRD COUNT

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Unlawful Retaliation

74. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of the within

paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

75. As set forth herein, after Plaintiff made a complaint of sexual harassment

within the workplace on behalf of a fellow employee, he was subjected to adverse

employment actions on behalf of the defendants.

76. Defendants' conduct towards Plaintiff, specifically his demotion of two

ranks and 120 day suspension without pay, constitutes unlawful retaliation in violation

of the LAD.

77. Plaintiff has been severally injured as a result of such retaliation that he

has suffered, and continues to suffer, physical and bodily injuries, severe emotional

distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, personal hardship, career and social

 disruption, psychological and emotional harm, economic losses, lost employment

opportunities, and other such damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marshawn Love, demands judgment against

defendants, City of Asbury Park; Asbury Park Police Department; Anthony Salerno,

Jr.: Jane Doe I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

John Doe I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

XYZ Corporation I-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are

unknown), jointly and severally, for harm suffered as a result of defendants' unlawful

retaliation as follows:

(a) reinstatement to position of Captain.

{b) full compensation for back pay and benefits with full remuneration,

with interest;

(c) full compensation for front pay and benefits with full remuneration,

with interest;

(d) compensatory damages;

(e) consequential damages;

, , I ,,
lf {f) punitive damages;

{g) pre-judgment interest;

(h) attorneys' fees with appropriate enhancement under Rendine v.

Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995); and

{i) such other relief as may be available pursuant to the LAD in which

this court deems to be just and equitable.

 FOURTH COUNT

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Hostile Work Environment - Disability and/or Perceived Disability Harassment
and Discrimination

78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of the within

paragraphsof this Complaint as if set forth at length herein.

79. Pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1

et seg. ("LAD"), defendant is liable for the acts constituting hostile work environment

disability and/or perceived disability harassment and discriminationof Plaintiff by

defendants' employees, supervisors and management.

80. Defendants are an "employer" as defined under the LAD.

81. As set forth herein, defendants createdand perpetuated a severe and

a pervasive hostile work environment based upon harassing Plaintiff's doctor about his
medical leave and conducting a three week long surveillance of Plaintiff's home while

he was out on medical leave. Plaintiff was harassed, followed and mocked on

account of his medical condition.

82. Instead of properly accommodating Plaintiffs medical condition,

Defendant used same as a reason to harass and discriminate against Plaintiff.

83. Defendants failed to implement any effective preventative or remedial

measures to protect against disability and/or perceived disabliity discrimination

including, but not limited to:

(a) failure to adequately train supervisory personnel;

II
(b) failure to institute or implement effective policies or procedures

regarding racial and other discrimination and the reporting and investigation of

complaints of same;

(c) failure to adequately monitor or supervise the illegal activities and

discriminatory actions of supervisory personnel;

(d) failure to provide adequate training to recognize, address, rectify

and/or prevent illegal or discriminatory conduct; and

(e) failure to adequately rectify, discipline or prevent known

discriminatory conduct by supervisory personnel.

84. The conduct engaged in by defendants constitutes egregious behavior

and/or willful indifference by upper management to the rights of Plaintiff sufficient to

subject defendants to punitive damages under the LAD and Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us.

85. Plaintiff has been severely injured as a result of such disability and/or

perceived disability discrimination that he has suffered, and continues to suffer,

physical and bodily injuries, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment,

anguish, person hardship, career and social disruption, psychological and emotional

harm, economic losses, lost employment opportunities, and other such damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Marshawn Love, demands judgment against

defendants, City of Asbury Park; Asbury Park Police Department; Anthony Salerno,

Jr.; Jane Doe 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

John Doe 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are unknown);

XYZ Corporation 1-V (these names being fictitious as their present identities are

unknown), jointly and severally, for harm suffered as a result of defendants' hostile
 O'CONNOR, PARSO
Attorneys for Plai

B_y: 8.N(5siJ
GREGORY B. NOBLE

DATED: July 25, 2017

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Please take notice that pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, Gregory B. Noble, Esq. is

hereby designated as trial counsel in the within matter.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1

The undersigned, Gregory B. Noble, certifies on behalf of the plaintiff as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey,

counsel for the above-named Plaintiff in the subject action.

2. The matter in controversy in this case is not, to my knowledge, the

subject of any other action pending in any court or pending arbitration proceeding, nor

is any other action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.

3. There are no other parties who should be joined in this action that we are

aware of at the present time.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware

that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to

punishment.

By:
GRE : ---- --
DATED: July 25, 2017
I

Appendix XIl-B l
FOR C:SE BY CLERK S OFFI CE O' LY
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT PAYMENT TYPe: 0cK 0cG-OcA
(CIS) Ct-tGICKN0.

Use for initial Law Division AMOUNT:

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1
Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1:5-6(c), O VERPAYMEN;T
if Information above the black bar Is not completed
or attorney's signature is not affixed BATCHNUMSER:

ATTORNEY/ PRO SE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER COUNTY OF VENUE

Gregory B. Noble, Esq. (908) 928-9200 Monmouth
FIRMNAME (If applicable) DOCKET NUMBER (when available)
O'ConnorParsons Lane & Noble
OFFICE ADDRESS DOCUMENT TYPE
435 E. Broad Street Complaint
Westfield, NJ 07090
JURY DEMAND YES O No
NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John Doe, Plainti ff) CAPTION
Marshawn Love, Plaintiff Marshawn Love v. City of Asbury Park, et al.

CASE TYPE NUMBER HURRICANE SANDY

(See reverse side for listing) RELATED? IS THIS A PROFESISONALMALPRACITCECASE? 0 YES NO
0 YES NO IF YOUHAVE CHECKED "YES."SEEN.J S.A. 2A:53 A -27 ANO APPLICABLE CASE LAW
618
REGARDING YOUR OBLIGATIONTO FILE ANAFFIDAVIT OF MERIT.
RELATED CASES PENDING? IF YES, LIST DOCKET NUMBERS
DYES No

DO YOU ANTICIPATEADDING ANY PARTIES NAME OFDEFENDANT'S PRIMARY INSURANCE COMPANY (if known)
(arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? 0 NONE
0 Yes No UNKNOWN

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE.

CASECHARACTERISTICSFOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF C-.ASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
oo PARTIES HAVE A CURRENT, PAST OR 1 1F
YES, rs THAT RELATIONSHI:P
RECURRENTRELATIONSHIP? EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE O FRIEND/NEIGHBOR D OTHER (e aln)
Yes D No O FAMILIAL O BusNEss
DOES THE STATUTE GOVERNING THISCASE PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THELOSING PARTY? o Yes NO
USE THIS SPACE TOALERT THECOURT TO ANY SPECIALCASE CHARACTERISTICSTHAT MAY WARRANT INDIVIDUALMANAGEMENT OR
ACCELERATED DISPOSITION

00 YOU OR YOUR CLIEfoIT NEED AAY DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED ACCOMMOOATION
0 YES NO
WILL1W INTERPRETER BENEEDED? IF YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE?
0 YES

rs have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be
n the future In accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).

ATTOANEY SIGNATU :

Effective 06/05/2017, CN 10517 page 1 of 2

 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT
(CIS)
Use for initial pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1

CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.)
Track I 150 days' discovery
151 NAME CHANGE
175 FORFEITURE
302 TENANCY
399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract. Condemnation, Complex Commercial or Construction)
502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only)
505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM {Includingdeclaratory judgment acllons)
506 PJP COVERAGE
510 UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage Issues only)
511 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
512 LEMON LAW
601 SUMMARY ACTION
802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (summary action)
999 OTHER (briefly describe nature of action)

Track II - 300 days' discovery

305 CONSTRUCTION
509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD)
599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIALTRANSACTION
603N AUTO NEGLIGENCE PERSONAL INJURY (non-verbalthreshold)
603Y AUTO NEGLIGENCE= PERSONAL INJURY (vetba l threshold)
605 PERSONAL INJURY
610 AUTO NEGLIGENCE- PROPERTY DAMAGE
621 UM or UIM CLAIM (includes bodHy Injury)
699 TORT - OTHER
Track Ill 450 days' discovery
005 CIVIL RIGHTS
301 CONDEMNATION
602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY
604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
606 PRODUCT LIABILITY
607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
608 TOXIC TORT
609 DEFAMATION
616 WHISTLEBLOWER/ CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES
617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION
618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES
Track IV Active Case Management by Individual Judge / 450 days' discovery
156 ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION
303 MT. LAUREL
508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL
513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION
514 INSURANCE FRAUD
620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT
701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS
Multlcounty Litigation (Track IV)
271 ACCUTANEJISOTRETINOIN 292 PELVICMESH/BARO
274 RISPERDAL/SEROQUEL/ZYPREXA 293 DEPUY ASR HIP IMPLANT LITIGATION
281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 295 ALLODERM REGENERATIVE TISSUE MATRIX
28 2 FOSAMAX 296 STRYKER REJUVENA TE/ABG II MODULAR HIP STEM COMPONENTS
285 STRYKER TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS 297 MIRENA CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE
286 LEVAQUIN 299 OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL MEDICATIONS/BENJCAR
287 YAZ/YASMIN/OCELLA 300 TALC-BASEDBODY POWDERS
289 REGLAN 601 ASBESTOS
290 POMPTON LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL LlTJGATION 623 PROPECIA
291 PELVIC MESH/GYNECARE 624 STRYKER LFIT CoCr V40 FEMORAL HEADS

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please Indicate the reason on Side 1,
In the space under Nease Characterlstlc:s.
Please check off each applicable category O Putative Class Action 0 Title 59

Effec1ive 06/05/2017, CN 10517 page 2 of 2