Lawsuit against Madison Marquette shopping center down to a single plaintiff
By: Greg Forester
MONTGOMERY A lawsuit brought by several neighboring businesses opposed to Madison Marquette’s Montgomery Promenade shopping center is now down to its last plaintiff, after five others have withdrawn over the course of the suit.
Attorneys involved in the case redrafted the lawsuit Monday to stand with the single remaining plaintiff Garbo Jewelers versus the Montgomery Planning Board and the developer.
Madison Marquette Attorney Tom Hall said he asked the attorney for the remaining three plaintiffs for certification of their involvement in the suit, and he was told he would only be receiving one, from Garbo Jewelers.
The other two remaining plaintiffs did not provide certification, so they have "effectively" withdrawn from the suit, according to the attorney for the plaintiffs, Paul H. Schneider.
"I don’t know why they dropped out," said Mr. Hall, referring to Towne Wine and Liquor and the Bagel Barn. "They weren’t willing to certify, and they weren’t willing to stay on the case."
The original suit was aimed at decisions made by the Planning Board in regard to the development near southwest corner of Route 206 and Route 518.
Madison Marquette and township officials broke ground on the development on May 16.
Early in the legal battle, lawyers for the Planning Board and the developer had questioned the standing of the plaintiffs named in the suit and asked for a discovery proceeding to determine the identity of an unknown benefactor paying for the litigation.
While Somerset County Superior Court Judge Allison Accurso had denied the request for discovery, she did ask for certification from each of the remaining three plaintiffs, detailing their real interest in the case.
Representatives from several of the businesses originally named as plaintiffs in the suit had told The Packet in earlier interviews that they had been approached at their businesses by a mysterious lawyer, who told them an unknown entity would pay the cost of the suit in return for their involvement.
The judge ruled that regardless of who was paying the bills for the suit, the business owners still had a right to bring the lawsuit.
The attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Schneider, agreed with Judge Accurso’s ruling, saying that the existence of another entity paying legal costs had no bearing on his clients’ ability to bring the suit.
"I have never denied anything about the existence of such an entity," said Mr. Schneider, of the suggestion of an unknown entity was paying the cost of the suit. "The fee arrangement that I have with my clients has no bearing on this lawsuit."
Mr. Schneider also said that the defendants had responded to the lawsuit "with a campaign of intimidation, with threats that those who have sought judicial review will themselves be sued for exercising their right."
He added, "The developer tried to block review of the project, alleging ‘anonymous’ funding of a ‘mystery’ lawsuit. But there is no mystery about those pursuing this litigation. They are hardworking business owners convinced the Planning Board got it wrong."
Representatives from one of the original plaintiffs that withdrew, Montgomery Eye Care, said they joined the suit for camaraderie with their fellow businesses, but they really didn’t feel the center would affect them in the way it had been said when they joined the litigation.
Some of the plaintiffs said the mysterious attorney had asked the plaintiffs if they were aware of the increased traffic and competition created by the new center, before promising the financial assistance from the unknown entity.
The businesses originally named as plaintiffs in the suit besides Garbo Jewelers included Bagel Barn, Mrs. B’s Cleaners, Towne Wine and Liquors, Alfonso’s Pizza, and Montgomery Eye Care.
All of the businesses originally named are located in two shopping centers in close proximity to the Montgomery Promenade site.

