UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

) TIMOTHY HARMON and MATTHEW HARMON, ) Individually, and DCJ BELMAR, INC.; DOCKSIDE ) Hon. Peter G. Sheridan DINING, LLC; TWO DAWGS, INC.; and 1309 ) Magistrate Lois H. Goodman MAIN STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Corporations ) of the State of New Jersey, ) )

Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO: 3:17-CV-02437 )

v. ) )

BOROUGH OF BELMAR, a municipal corporation of ) the State of New Jersey; MATTHEW DOHERTY, ) individually and as Mayor; COLLEEN CONNOLLY, ) THIRD AMENDED

individually and as Borough Administrator; ) COMPLAINT

ANDREW HUISMAN, individually and as Chief of ) Police; JENNIFER NICOLAY, individually and as ) Council Member; JANIS KEOWN-BLACKBURN, ) individually and as Former Council Member; ) THOMAS BRENNAN, individually and as Council ) Member; BRIAN MAGOVERN, as Council Member; ) THOMAS PALMISANO, individually and as Former ) Chief of Police; THOMAS COX, individually and as ) Captain, Belmar Police Department; TINA SCOTT, ) individually and as Captain, Belmar Police ) Department; TED BIANCHI, individually and as ) Borough Construction Officer, ROBERT POFF, ) individually and as Borough Code Enforcement ) Officer; and JOHN and JANE DOES, ) BELMAR BOROUGH AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, ) APPOINTEES, REPRESENTATIVES, CONSULTANTS ) and/or OFFICIALS, ) ) Defendants. ) )

1. The Plaintiffs, Timothy Harmon and Matthew Harmon, hereinafter

2

referred to as “individual Plaintiffs” or as “Plaintiffs”, and DCJ Belmar, Inc; Dockside

Dining, LLC; Two Dawgs, Inc. and 1309 Main Street Associates, LLC, hereafter

referred to as “corporate Plaintiffs” or as “Plaintiffs”, by and through their

undersigned attorneys, and as and for their Complaint against the Defendants, allege

on knowledge as to themselves and their own acts as set forth in the attached

Verification and upon information and belief as to all other matters set forth herein as

follows:

NATURE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

2. For nearly twenty years, the individual Plaintiffs have owned and

operated restaurants and taverns located in the Borough of Belmar (which

municipality shall also be referred to in this Complaint as “Belmar” or as the

“Borough”), County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey.

3. The Plaintiffs continue to maintain an establishment known as The

Boathouse Bar and Grill and formerly owned and operated an establishment known

as 507 Main. The Boathouse Bar and Grill is located on Block 136 in Lots 17 and 18 in

the Borough of Belmar, which property is owned by Plaintiff 1309 Main Street

Associates, LLC, an entity owned by Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew Harmon.

During that entire time period, the Plaintiffs, through corporate entities in which they

have been the only shareholders (the corporate Plaintiffs herein) have been the owners

of alcoholic beverage licenses issued by Belmar.

4. This is an action to recover damages for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to

control and operate their businesses and to own, operate and control and transfer

3

them free from the tortious, fraudulent, and extortionate conduct of Belmar

politicians, officials, employees and appointees. All of the Defendants named in this

Complaint acted on behalf of Defendant Belmar and related and/or surrogate

entities. This action is brought pursuant to the Equal Protection and the Due Process

Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act;

42 U.S.C. § 1985 of the Civil Rights Act; 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 et seq.

(“NJ-RICO”), the New Jersey Statute that prohibits racketeering activity and provides

for civil remedies therefor.

5. The Defendant Borough of Belmar is a resort community located along the

Atlantic Ocean in which the population and commercial activity dramatically

increases during the summer months and sharply decreases in the fall of each year.

During the summer season each year, tens of thousands of visitors from New Jersey,

New York, Pennsylvania and other states as well as from Canada and other countries

come to Belmar to enjoy its beaches and other recreational opportunities. While in

Belmar, those visitors patronize the bars, restaurants and other businesses located in

the Borough.

6. The northern boundary of the Borough is marked by the Shark River Inlet

and the Shark River, on which is located a municipal marina facility owned by the

Borough.

7. The Borough has created a redevelopment area along and near its

4

boundary with the Shark River. The redevelopment area includes the property

referred to herein as the “Salt property”; or the “Loko property”.

8. During the period of time from January 2013 through January 2014, Loko,

LLC negotiated and entered into a Redevelopment Agreement with the Borough

pertaining to the Loko property.

9. That Redevelopment Agreement was approved by vote of the Mayor and

Borough Council of the Borough of Belmar in an action in which the Defendants

Doherty, Nicolay and Magovern all participated and all voted in the affirmative.

10. The aforesaid Redevelopment Agreement provided for a two-phase

redevelopment of the Loko property. The first phase was to extend for a period of

three (3) years, and provided for the construction and operation of an outdoor café

and bar. After the conclusion of the initial three (3) year period, the Redevelopment

Agreement provided for the construction of residential condominium units in a

building in which the first floor would contain commercial space, including a

restaurant and bar.

11. Throughout the course of Loko’s negotiations and approval process with

the Borough, Loko was engaged in discussions, consultations and negotiations with

the Plaintiffs in an effort to induce them to own and operate the outdoor café and bar

on the Loko property. The Defendant Borough and the Mayor, Council and

Administrator were aware that Loko intended the outdoor café and bar to be operated

by the Plaintiffs.

12. Loko obtained site-plan approval on February 10, 2014, and amended site-

5

plan approval on November 16, 2015, from the Planning Board of the Borough of

Belmar for the outdoor café and bar facility based upon plans which were developed,

designed and approved by the Plaintiffs.

13. As a result of discussions between the Plaintiffs and Loko, as well as the

approval of the Redevelopment Agreement by the Belmar Council and the approval

of a site-plan therefor by the Belmar Planning Board, the Plaintiffs entered into a Lease

and an Agreement with Loko, LLC on or about March 20, 2015 to construct the

outdoor café and bar on the Loko property and to operate the facility for a term

beginning on March 20, 2015 and ending on October 31, 2017.

14. Prior thereto, Loko, in reliance upon the aforesaid Redevelopment

Agreement, demolished the existing structure on the Loko property; installed utilities

and constructed parking and other improvements in order to make the property ready

for the Salt facility. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs engaged contractors, expended

substantial funds, obtained construction and other permits from the Borough and

began the process of constructing the Salt facility.

15. The aforesaid Agreement required the Plaintiffs to utilize the alcoholic

beverage license owned by them and which was then utilized at their establishment

507 Main, which was located across the street from the Loko property.

16. In reliance upon its agreements with Loko and the actions of the Borough,

the Borough Council and the Planning Board set forth herein, the Plaintiffs ceased

operation of 507 Main and made application to the Borough for the transfer of the

6

alcoholic beverage license from 507 Main to the Loko premises in order to operate an

outdoor bar and restaurant under the name “Salt”.

17. The Plaintiffs filed an application for place to place transfer of their

alcoholic beverage license on or about April 24, 2015, which was not acted upon by

the Borough until June, 2016, nearly 14 months later.

18. As alcoholic beverage licensees for nearly twenty (20) years, the Plaintiffs

have been investigated by the Belmar Police Department and approved to be the

owners of multiple alcoholic beverage licenses issued by the Borough of Belmar.

Moreover, on an annual basis, for nearly twenty (20) years, their licenses were

renewed by the Borough Council for each successive annual license term.

19. The Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation that their application for

transfer would be handled under the normal policies and procedures of the Belmar

Police Department; to wit, that the application would be assigned to the detective

bureau; investigated by a detective of the Police Department and a report provided to

the Mayor and Borough Council as soon as practicable, but within the sixty (60) days

provided for such an investigation by the applicable regulations of the New Jersey

Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control at N.J.A.C. 13:2-7.7(d).

20. In fact, during the period of time which is the subject of this Complaint,

the Belmar Police Department and the Mayor and Council handled other applications

for transfers of alcoholic beverage licenses in that manner; under those procedures

and within the required time frame. Those applications included, by way of example

and not by way of limitation, the following applications which were for locations that

7

included the same type of outdoor facilities as those proposed by Plaintiffs:

a) Chef’s International, Inc., a company with close personal and

business relationships with Defendant Doherty, filed a transfer application on

August 28, 2015 for premises known as the “Anchor Tavern”.

On October 6, 2015, only 39 days later, the police department had

completed its investigation and the Borough Council acted to authorize a transfer

that a liquor license to Chef’s International Inc.

The transfer to Chef’s included approval of an outdoor bar and seating

area, with live music, in close proximity to residential apartments and on the

same block as the Borough’s senior citizen apartment building.

b) On November 9, 2016, the Borough Council authorized a person-to-

person and place-to-place transfer of a liquor license to Irish Curse, LLC d/b/a

10th Ave Burrito Company, after receiving the transfer application only 90 days

earlier.

The 10th Ave Burrito approval included an outdoor bar and dining area,

with live entertainment and a fire pit, located directly across the street from the

Borough’s senior citizen apartment building.

21. The two aforementioned approvals were for licensed premises which

were substantially similar to Salt, but in much closer proximity to residential

structures than is the Salt property.

22. Contrary to the policy and procedures which had been previously

established followed by the Police Department with regard to alcoholic beverage

8

license transfer applications, the Defendant Palmisano, in April 2015, at the urging of

Defendants Doherty and Connolly, assigned the investigation of the Plaintiffs’

application to the Defendant Huisman, then a Captain of the Police Department.

Defendant Huisman’s duties as a Captain did not include the investigation of

alcoholic beverage license transfers and, moreover, Huisman alleged that he had

never in his career handled such an investigation.

23. However, Huisman wanted to be promoted to Chief of the Police

Department upon Palmisano’s impending retirement. Palmisano made it clear to

Huisman that, if he wanted to be Chief, he had to be a “team player” for Defendant

Doherty, who did not want Plaintiffs’ application approved.

24. Defendant Palmisano’s motivation in acceding to the demands of Doherty

and Connolly was personal and economic. Palmisano owned and operated a bait and

tackle shop at the Belmar Municipal Marina under a favorable lease from the

Borough. He wanted to insure that his personal business arrangement was continued

after his retirement and after construction of new facilities at the Marina by Chef’s

International, Inc., with whom Doherty had a close business and personal

relationship.

25. Defendant Palmisano has been rewarded for his cooperation by being

allowed to maintain his personal business at the Belmar Marina ever since.

26. Defendant Huisman, in fact, intentionally delayed the investigation of the

Plaintiffs’ application until after Huisman was sworn in as Chief of Police in late

April, 2016.

9

27. Huisman assigned Defendants Cox and Scott, both of whom were

Lieutenants, to assist in the investigation, instructing them to delay the process. They

complied and both were promoted to Captain after Huisman became Chief.

28. Huisman’s efforts to carry out Doherty’s vendetta against Plaintiffs went

so far that in the fall of 2015, he appeared before the Belmar Planning Board to object

to the approval of an amended site plan for the Salt facility. Without any basis in fact

and with no background, experience or education in electrical engineering or lighting

Huisman testified under oath that the facility’s lighting was inadequate—in direct

contravention of the testimony and report of the Board’s expert licensed professional

engineer.

ACTIONS OF DOHERTY AND CONNOLLY

29. In or about April 2015, the Defendants Doherty and Connolly began a

concerted effort to prevent the Plaintiffs from constructing and opening the Salt

facility on the Loko property. The Defendant Doherty advised representatives of the

Plaintiffs, the Loko, LLC Managing Partner, Greg Kapalko, and others that the

Plaintiffs “would never open a business” in that location and instructed Borough

employees, including members of the Police Department and the Construction

Department, to delay processing the Plaintiffs alcoholic beverage license application

and to interfere with the construction process for the Salt facility.

30. The Defendant Connolly was appointed as Borough Administrator at

Doherty’s behest, her primary qualification being her close personal relationship with

10

Doherty’s wife. Defendant Connolly’s primary responsibility was to follow Doherty’s

orders which, in this case, were to harass and harm the Plaintiffs.

31. In the spring of 2015, Patrick Roddy, a local entertainer who was

acquainted with Defendant Doherty, learned about Plaintiffs’ proposed outdoor café

and bar at the Salt facility and was interested in becoming involved with the project.

When he asked Defendant Doherty about Plaintiffs’ plans to open Salt, Defendant

Doherty replied, “I will never allow it to happen” and “The Harmons will not open

there, but D’Jais might.”

32. The owners of D’Jais Bar & Grill on Ocean Avenue in the Borough of

Belmar were encouraged by Doherty to enter into negotiations to develop the same

parcel of land that was the proposed location of the Salt facility.

33. Because he knew that the owners of D’Jais were major political supporters

of Defendant Doherty, Roddy decided that it would be too risky to consider any

involvement with the project.

34. During the aforesaid period of time, the Defendants Doherty and

Connolly directed Defendant Bianchi and the Construction Department to delay, deny

and/or refuse to issue permits for the Salt facility despite its having been approved by

the Borough Planning Board and the fact that the project involved no permanent

structures. The Defendant Bianchi was constantly urged by Connolly to cooperate in

that effort.

35. In 2014, Defendant Connolly instructed John Rizzitello, who was then the

Fire Marshal of the Borough of Belmar, to prevent the construction of the proposed

11

fire pits at the Salt property. Rizzitello responded that he “did not have the authority

to reject new construction; the fire pits were on the approved site plan” and that

Defendant “Bianchi was responsible for reviewing fire codes for new construction.”

Rizzitello had a meeting with Defendant Bianchi, who told him, “Doherty and

Connolly want me to do things to the Harmons.”

36. During an inspection of the construction that had taken place at the Salt

facility in the Spring of 2015, Defendant Bianchi told Plaintiffs’ plumbing contractor

that Defendant Connolly had instructed him “to make it as difficult as possible for the

Harmons” and “to slow the Harmons down or completely prevent them from

opening the Salt facility”. Defendant Bianchi further told the contractor that he was

not comfortable with the instructions from Defendant Connolly, stating, “I don’t like

this. I don’t like being a part of this.”

37. During the summer months of 2015, the Defendant Borough, through its

Police Department and Construction Department, interfered with and harassed the

Plaintiffs in the construction of the Salt facility; issued illegal and improper stop work

orders; and otherwise acted to disrupt and disturb the Plaintiffs’ project.

38. On one such occasion, Defendant Connolly directed Defendants Huisman

and Palmisano to send armed police officers to the Salt property. Huisman did so in

spite of the fact that the police department has no authority over Construction Code

matters, and armed officers threatened the workers on the property with arrest if they

did not stop work.

39. When contacted by Plaintiffs, Defendant Palmisano told them that he had

12

been “directed to arrest you, no questions asked, if you come to the property.”

40. Belmar’s construction department failed and refused to make timely

inspections of work at Salt, as required by the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code

Act and Regulations. Plaintiffs’ contractors were forced to repeatedly call the

Construction Department for required inspections. When the contractors complained

that inspections on Salt were taking much longer to happen than was the usual

practice in Belmar, they were told by Bianchi that he had been instructed by

Defendant Connolly to “screw” the Harmons.

41. When Plaintiffs’ construction at the Salt property had reached an

advanced stage, the Defendants Doherty and Connolly directed Defendant Bianchi to

issue a Stop Work Order on the project, and such an order was issued by Defendant

Bianchi. Defendant Bianchi contacted Plaintiffs’ general contractor and informed him

that he [Defendant Bianchi] was posting a stop work order at the Salt property

because the work being performed was substantially different from the plans that had

been approved. The contractor questioned the accuracy of Defendant Bianchi’s

statement and Bianchi admitted that any differences “were minor”; and that there was

“no reason” for the Stop Work Order.

42. The contractor asked Defendant Bianchi why he could not continue to

perform the construction work while seeking an “as-built approval,” which would

approve the minor changes, which was the usual and ordinary practice in Belmar.

However, Defendant Bianchi refused, stating that he “had nothing personal against

the Harmons” but that he was only “following the orders given to him by [Defendant]

13

Connolly”.

43. In 2015, Patrick Callahan, who was then the Electrical Sub Code Official

for the Borough of Belmar, told Plaintiffs’ electrical contractor that he [Callahan] was

going to resign from his position in the Borough because of the constant political

interference that prevented him from performing his job properly. Callahan told the

contractor that Defendants Doherty and Connolly “were giving preferential treatment

to certain businesses and making it very difficult for others,” specifically mentioning

that Defendants Doherty and Connolly “were instructing him and other inspectors to

make it very difficult for the Harmons to operate their businesses” in the Borough.

Callahan, in fact, resigned.

44. During the aforesaid period of time, the Defendant Connolly called Greg

Kapalko of Loko and told him that he “had to stop all work at the site because the

NJDEP had issued a CAFRA (Coastal Area Facilities Review Act) violation”.

Connolly directed Huisman to send police officers to the site to shut down the work.

When asked to produce a copy of the violation by Plaintiffs, neither Connolly nor

Huisman could do so. Kapalko later verified that no such violation ever existed and

that the NJDEP had never contacted the Borough.

DOHERTY AND CONNOLLY’S INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS AND LOKO’S CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

45. During the aforesaid period of time, the Defendants Doherty and

14

Connolly improperly engaged in personal contact, discussions and negotiations with

property owners; prospective developers; and their agents, representatives and

attorneys, in an effort to replace the development contemplated by the approved Loko

Redevelopment Agreement with another, larger project, in which Doherty’s political

campaign contributors would have an interest and from which Plaintiffs would be

shut out.

46. Despite the fact that Loko had an approved Redevelopment Agreement

with the Borough, the Defendant Doherty also attempted to force the owner of the

Loko property to agree to a new partnership and Redevelopment Agreement with

Doherty’s preferred developers, with D’Jais as the operator of the outdoor bar and

café, and urged Loko to terminate its relationship with the Plaintiffs, causing Plaintiffs

extreme difficulties and loss of funding.

47. During the period of time from April 2014 through June of 2015, the

Defendant Doherty arranged and participated in meetings between representatives of

Loko, LLC and other prospective developers as well as an adjoining property owner,

Ollie Klein.

48. During a meeting which took place in April 2015, the Defendant Doherty

made statements to Kapalko and others such as: “The Borough will approve D’Jais or

Ollie Klein at that location, but not the Harmon brothers”; “The Harmons’ application

is going to get lost at police headquarters and it’s going to take forever to come to the

Council”; “When the Harmons’ application comes before the Council, we will deny

the liquor license and force them to go to the ABC”; and, “We know people there (at

15

the ABC) and if by chance they approve the transfer, we will appeal. They will never

open.” Such statements were confirmed and echoed by Defendant Connolly, who

referred to the Salt facility as a “sandbox bar”.

49. The Defendant Doherty also made statements to Kapalko and to others

that no temporary facility “will ever be approved” at the Loko property; that the

Plaintiffs “will never open a business” in that location and that Kapalko should tell the

Plaintiffs to “save a lot of time, money and aggravation and just walk away”.

Defendant Connolly also told Borough employees and residents that the Plaintiffs “will

never open”.

50. In May 2015 Plaintiff Timothy Harmon was told by Doherty that “your

plans do nothing for me” and, in the presence of Defendant Connolly, told Plaintiff that

“I am not going to allow you to open.”

FURTHER IMPROPER ACTIONS BY DEFENDANTS

51. During the summer of 2015, Patrick Roddy spoke with Defendant Nicolay

at the 9th Ave Pier Bar and Restaurant. Roddy asked Defendant Nicolay why the

Borough of Belmar was making it so difficult for the Harmons to open their new

business at the Salt property. Roddy told Defendant Nicolay that it was apparent that

the Harmons had been targeted by the Borough of Belmar. He further stated that the

businesses owned by Chefs International, Inc. were getting “the red carpet” treatment

from the Borough.

52. Shortly thereafter, Roddy, a musician who has been performing in the

Belmar area for more than twenty years, was performing at a bar owned by Chefs

16

International. Robert Cooper, President of Chefs International, spoke with Roddy,

informing Roddy that he [Cooper] was informed of Roddy’s comments to Nicolay

that Chefs International’s businesses were getting the red carpet treatment from the

Borough. Cooper told Roddy, “you have to stop playing at the Boathouse or you can’t

play at any of my places.” Upon information and belief, Defendant Nicolay had

informed Defendant Doherty of Roddy’s conversation with her, and Defendant

Doherty then informed Cooper, with whom Defendant Doherty is very close.

53. Since that time Roddy has been “blacklisted” by Doherty and Connolly

from appearing at any Belmar function or festival at which he had for many years

been invited to perform.

54. During the aforesaid period of time, Defendant Huisman engaged in a

concerted effort to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ businesses and the construction of the

Salt facility. During that period of time, Huisman advised members of the Police

Department as well as other officials of the Borough, including construction and code

enforcement officials, to deny permits to the Plaintiffs; harassed the Plaintiffs in the

operation of their business at the Boathouse; arbitrarily denied Plaintiffs’ applications

for permits for the St. Patrick’s Day Parade; and advised other Borough officials that

they needed to be “team players” in the Borough’s efforts against the Plaintiffs.

55. During 2015, in a further effort to harass the Plaintiffs, the Defendants

Huisman, Doherty, Connolly, Nicolay, Keown-Blackburn, Brennan and Magovern

conspired to impose a permit parking zone in the area of the Plaintiffs’ Boathouse Bar

and Grill, the only licensed premises in the Borough so targeted. An ordinance was

17

drafted creating a parking permit ban in the areas near the Boathouse and D’Jais. At

Doherty’s urging, the D’Jais area was deleted, leaving only the Boathouse area in the

ordinance.

56. In November 2015, Rizzitello, the Belmar Fire Inspector, was at a property

known as the Anchor Tavern, which Chef’s International had recently acquired and

for which it had obtained a liquor license. (See paragraph 20a herein) Rizzitello

observed that the building was being gutted. He informed Defendant Bianchi, who

was upset and replied that Chef’s International had not obtained the proper permits

to gut the building. Defendant Bianchi immediately issued a stop work order at the

property. However, within hours, Defendant Connolly intervened and ordered

Bianchi to lift the Stop Work Order.

57. During the summer and fall of 2015, and at the direction of Defendants

Doherty and Connolly, Defendants Palmisano, Huisman, Cox and Scott failed to

properly pursue the investigation of Plaintiffs’ application for alcoholic beverage

license transfer.

58. On or about January 2016, when the Borough Police Department finally

began to conduct an investigation of the Plaintiffs’ transfer application, the

Defendants Cox, Scott and Huisman falsified reports and intentionally misrepresented

statements made by individuals who had loaned funds to the Plaintiffs and falsely

characterized their statements as having created an undisclosed interest in the

alcoholic beverage license. Those actions of the Defendants were solely for the

purpose of further delaying the review of the Plaintiff’s application.

18

59. In February 2016, Rizzitello attended a meeting about the 2016 St. Patrick’s

Day Parade, along with Defendants Connolly, Huisman and Poff. At the beginning of

the meeting, Defendant Huisman said to Rizzitello, “We are all being sued by the

Harmons, so you are going to deny the permit for Boathouse [to expand its licensed

premises] at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade.” When Rizzitello said there was no reason

to deny, Defendant Huisman became extremely agitated; screamed at Rizzitello and

told Rizzitello “that he needed to be a team player”. Defendant Huisman further

stated that he would be “standing outside the Boathouse on the day of the St. Patrick’s

Day Parade” and, if any violations were found, he would “immediately shut down

the Boathouse”.

60. In the summer of 2016, Defendant Connolly attempted to convince a

resident who lived near the Boathouse to file complaints against the Boathouse

operation, despite the fact that the resident had never had reason to complain.

Connolly went so far as to have form complaint prepared to encourage residents to

sign against the Plaintiffs.

THE BOGUS COUNCIL DECISION

61. In late May or June 2016, over one year after the filing of the application

for transfer of the alcoholic beverage license, Defendant Huisman finally allowed the

Belmar Police Department to issue a report to the Mayor and Council. Despite both

written and oral requests made to the Police Department Defendants, a copy of the

investigation report was never provided to the Plaintiffs.

19

62. The application for a person-to-person and place-to-place transfer was

scheduled to be considered by the Mayor and Borough Council at its meeting of June

8, 2016. A copy of a proposed Resolution authorizing the transfer was both provided

to the licensee and posted on the Borough’s website. The proposed Resolution

approved the license transfer and imposed no conditions on the license.

63. Prior to the June 8, 2016 meeting, the Defendants Connolly and Doherty

contacted, both orally and in writing, residents and business owners of the Borough of

Belmar and urged them to appear at the meeting to express opposition to the

Plaintiffs’ license transfer. Defendant Nicolay, at the request of Connolly, sent a text

message to Ollie Klein, an adjoining business owner, to tell him to appear at the

meeting to discuss his concerns regarding sewerage and parking near the proposed

Salt location, which concerns he had discussed only with Defendant Connolly.

64. At no time prior to the meeting of June 8, 2016 were the Plaintiffs advised

that any action other than an approval of their application would be taken by the

Mayor and Council. Applicable State regulations found at N.J.A.C. 13:2-7.7(c)

provide, in pertinent part, that “no application shall be disapproved without first

affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and providing the applicant with

at least five days notice thereof.” No such notice was ever provided to the Plaintiffs.

65. The Defendant Doherty did not appear at the June 8th meeting, leaving

four Council Members to act on Plaintiff’s application. Doherty had just recently been

barred by Order of the Superior Court of New Jersey from participating in liquor

license matters due to his acceptance of political contributions from licensees,

20

including D’Jais.

66. The Defendant, Thomas Brennan, as a member of the Borough Council for

the two years prior to the June 8, 2016 Council meeting, participated in and voted

upon every alcoholic beverage license application which came before the Mayor and

Council, including those applications filed by establishments which employed the

Defendant Brennan as a musician.

67. On June 8, 2016, however, Defendant Brennan was told by Defendants

Doherty and Connolly not to participate in the Plaintiffs’ matter and he recused

himself from participating in the consideration of Plaintiffs’ alcoholic beverage

transfer application. His explanation was that he was a musician and that his band

played at licensed establishments in the Borough and, therefore, it was not

appropriate for him to consider alcoholic beverage matters, despite his having done so

for the prior two years.

68. The Defendants Nicolay and Keown-Blackburn voted in the negative on

Plaintiffs’ application on the sole basis that the proposed “location was not

appropriate” for an outdoor tiki type bar due to potential noise and disturbance to

neighbors.

69. The Defendants did so despite knowing that the Borough Council had

previously approved and signed a Redevelopment Agreement that provided for such

an outdoor establishment to be located on the premises and despite the fact that the

Defendant Nicolay had participated in and voted in favor of the aforesaid

Redevelopment Agreement.

21

70. Prior to the aforesaid meeting, the Defendants Doherty and Connolly

instructed the Defendants Nicolay, Keown-Blackburn and Magovern to vote “no” on

the Plaintiff’s application.

71. At the meeting of June 8, 2016, only two individuals spoke in opposition

to Plaintiffs’ application. The first was a resident in a senior citizen complex with

close political ties to the Defendant Doherty and who was recently handpicked by

Doherty as “citizen of the year”. The second was Ollie Klein, the owner of a

restaurant and holder of an alcoholic beverage license issued by the Borough, who

appeared at the meeting only after the written urging of Defendant Nicolay and oral

urging of the Defendant Connolly to speak out concerning “traffic and sewer

problems”.

72. During the June 8, 2016 Borough of Belmar Council meeting, after

Defendants Nicolay and Keown-Blackburn voted to deny Plaintiffs’ license transfer

application, even Defendant Magovern was appalled and stated that their votes to

deny the application were “personal.”

73. The actions of the Defendants Nicolay, Brennan and Keown-Blackburn

were in direct conflict with other decisions they had and have since made to approve

outdoor bar facilities in the Borough, including premises known as The 10th Avenue

Burrito Company (see paragraph 20b); The Anchor Tavern (see paragraph 20a herein);

the Marina Grille; the 9th Avenue Pier and others, many of those facilities being in

much closer proximity to residential structures than is the Salt property. The 9th Ave

Pier and the Marina Grille are both Chef’s International operations, as is The Anchor

22

Tavern. The Pier is a totally outdoor bar and restaurant, with live entertainment

located at the Belmar Marina. The Grille, also located at the Marina, has an outdoor

deck on which food and alcoholic beverages are served.

74. In addition to the many facilities located in Defendant Belmar which

contain outdoor bars and restaurants, there is also located in the Borough a facility

known as the 9th Avenue Pier, which is, in fact, the largest outdoor bar and restaurant

located in the Borough.

75. The aforesaid 9th Avenue Pier is owned by Chef’s International, Inc., a

company which has business relationships with the Defendant Borough and whose

officers have close, personal relationships with the Defendants Doherty and Connolly.

76. The aforesaid company, in fact, leases the premises of the 9th Avenue Pier,

located at the Belmar Municipal Marina, from the Defendant Borough and has also

constructed a restaurant/catering facility known as the “Marina Grille” at the

aforesaid marina; both arrangements under extremely favorable lease agreements

granted to it by the Defendants Doherty, Nicolay, Keown-Blackburn, Magovern and

Brennan. The Defendant Borough of Belmar receives money payments from Chef’s

International Inc. for the leasing of the Pier and Grille facilities, which would have

been direct competitors of the Salt facility.

77. The fact that the reasons expressed by the Defendants for the denial were

totally untrue is further demonstrated by the fact on or about July 11, 2017, the

Defendants Doherty, Nicolay, Brennan and Magovern all voted in favor of Borough of

Belmar Resolution 2017-120, authorizing the execution of an Amendment to the Loko

23

Redevelopment Agreement, which allows for an outdoor bar and restaurant on the

exact same property on which Salt was to be located.

78. Doherty’s vote in favor of Borough of Belmar Resolution 2017-120,

moreover, was in violation of Belmar Code § 9-5a(2), which prohibits elected officials

who receive pass-through campaign contributions from voting on certain categories of

matters, including any redevelopment matter.

DOHERTY’S CORRUPT MOTIVES AND SELF DEALING

79. As noted herein, Doherty and, at his direction, Connolly have improperly

forced Borough inspectors and other officials to provide preferential treatment to

Chef’s International.

80. In or about April, 2016, Defendant Doherty obtained a mortgage on his

house with the assistance of officers of Chef’s International Inc. Despite having four

outstanding, unsatisfied mortgages on his house, Defendant Doherty obtained a fifth

mortgage on April 18, 2016 in excess of one million dollars, from a bank with which

Chef’s International Inc. does a substantial amount of business. Upon information

and belief, an officer of Chef’s International was a guarantor of the bank’s loan to

Defendant Doherty.

81. When Chef’s International was nearing completion of the Anchor Tavern,

Defendant Doherty was present at the premises; helped the staff to move and arrange

tables and chairs and told Chef’s employees that “we have to hurry, I have a lot

invested in this place.” At the grand opening, Defendant Doherty stood at the

entrance and welcomed customers, as if he were the proprietor.

24

82. Among the other competitors of Plaintiffs in the Borough is D’Jais, a bar

and restaurant located on Ocean Avenue in the Borough which has only a seasonal

liquor license, the owners and supporters of which have made tens of thousands of

dollars of political contributions which have been passed through to the local and

county political campaigns of the Defendant Doherty.

83. Those individuals, as well as the Defendant Doherty, have been

proponents of State legislation to extend the period of operation of seasonal alcoholic

beverage licenses from May to October to March to October, efforts which the

Plaintiffs have opposed. Such an extension would be a substantial financial benefit to

the owners of D’Jais, allowing it to open for the Belmar St. Patrick’s Day parade, the

largest in the state, which occurs in March, as well as for 60 additional days of

business each year. Upon information and belief, the efforts of Defendants Doherty

and others to interfere with, injure and disrupt the legitimate business operations of

the Plaintiffs have been, at least in part, in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ opposition to

those efforts. D’Jais, the holder of a seasonal liquor license, would be the primary

beneficiary in Belmar of such a legislative extension.

84. On June 8, 2015, a bill to extend the period of operation of seasonal

alcoholic beverage licenses was introduced in the State Senate Law and Public Safety

Committee. Between June 2015 and January 2016, Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew

Harmon, holders of year-round plenary alcoholic beverage licenses, communicated to

State legislators their opposition to efforts to extend the period of operation of

seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses, which efforts were backed by Defendant Doherty

25

and D’Jais. The reason for Plaintiffs’ opposition was that the extension of the period

of operation of seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses would allow competing seasonal

alcoholic beverage licensees, such as D’Jais, to take business away from Plaintiffs

during the months of March and April, even though Plaintiffs had invested

substantially more money to purchase year-round alcoholic beverage licenses.

85. At the end of 2015, Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew Harmon testified

before the State Assembly Committee regarding their opposition to the extension of

the period of operation of seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses.

86. In addition, Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew Harmon authored

correspondence to several State Senators and Assembly members to convey their

opposition to the legislative extension of the seasonal alcoholic beverage license

season.

87. The owners of D’Jais also contributed thousands of dollars to State

legislators who were proponents of the extension for seasonal alcoholic beverage

licenses and who were political and financial supporters of Defendant Doherty and

his political campaigns and who, in turn, contributed thousands of dollars to

Defendant Doherty’s 2016 campaign for Monmouth County Freeholder.

88. Among the Mayors of municipalities along the Jersey Shore, Defendant

Doherty was the only one to support the extension for seasonal alcoholic beverage

licenses.

89. Moreover, during Defendant Doherty’s most recent Mayoral campaign,

D’Jais was directly involved in registering absentee voters, even attempting to have

26

people who did not reside in Belmar file absentee applications so they could vote for

Doherty in the Borough of Belmar.

90. Although a bill to extend the time period for seasonal alcoholic beverage

licenses was passed by the legislature, the effort failed when Governor Chris Christie

vetoed the bill on or about May 11, 2017. The Plaintiffs worked closely with then

Assemblyman David Rible to convince the Governor that he should veto the

legislation.

91. Since the veto, both Doherty and the owners of D’Jais have told residents

and officials of Belmar that they “would get” the Harmons and Rible and that “the

Harmons will pay for this.”

THE DEFENDANTS

92. The Defendant, Borough of Belmar, is a municipal corporation of the State

of New Jersey, located in Monmouth County. The Borough is authorized, pursuant to

statute, to create and maintain a governing body comprised of an elected Mayor and a

four (4) member Council. The Borough, acting through its Mayor and Council, is

vested with the power to create and maintain a police department, a municipal

planning board, a construction/building department and a zoning enforcement

department. The Borough has the power to appoint a chief of police, a construction

code official, a zoning/code enforcement officer, a borough administrator and other

officers and employees.

93. At all times referred to herein, the Defendant, Matthew Doherty, was the

Mayor of the Borough of Belmar. Mayor Doherty is joined both individually and in his

27

capacity as an agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of Belmar.

While serving as Mayor of Belmar, the Defendant Doherty set policies and conducted

affairs of office under color of State law.

94. The Defendant, Colleen Connolly, is and was at all times mentioned

herein the Borough Administrator of Belmar. The Defendant Connolly was appointed

by and performed her duties at the direction of the Mayor and Council and did so

acting under color of State law. The Defendant Connolly is joined both individually

and in her capacity as an agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of

Belmar.

95. The Defendant, Andrew Huisman, is and was at all times mentioned

herein an employee of the police department of the Borough of Belmar in the positions

of Captain and Chief of Police. The Defendant Huisman was appointed to the

positions of Captain and Chief of Police by the Belmar Mayor and Council and acted

at the direction of the Mayor and Council. The Defendant Huisman was the final

policy making authority in the police department and, while Chief of Police, the

Commanding Officer of the other members of the police department referred to

herein. The Defendant Huisman is joined both individually and in his capacity as

agent, servant, employee and official policy maker of Belmar through its police

department. The Defendant Huisman acted under color of State law in his capacities

as Captain and Chief of Police.

96. The Defendant, Thomas Palmisano, at certain times mentioned herein,

28

was an employee of the police department of the Borough of Belmar in the position of

Chief of Police. The Defendant Palmisano was appointed to the position of Chief of

Police by the Belmar Mayor and Council and acted at the direction of the Mayor and

Council. At those times, the Defendant Palmisano was the final policy making

authority in the police department and the Commanding Officer of the other members

of the police department referred to herein. The Defendant Palmisano is joined both

individually and in his capacity as agent, servant, employee and official policy maker

of Belmar through its police department. The Defendant Palmisano acted under color

of State law in his capacity as Chief of Police.

97. The Defendant, Jennifer Nicolay, was at all times mentioned herein a

member of the Borough Council of the Borough of Belmar acting under the color of

State law. The Defendant Nicolay is joined both individually and in her capacity as an

agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of Belmar.

98. The Defendant, Janis Keown-Blackburn was, at certain times referred to

herein, a member of the Borough Council of the Borough of Belmar acting under the

color of State law. The Defendant Keown-Blackburn is joined both individually and in

her capacity as an agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of

Belmar.

99. The Defendant, Thomas Brennan, was at all times mentioned herein a

member of the Borough Council of the Borough of Belmar acting under the color of

State law. The Defendant Brennan is joined both individually and in his capacity as an

agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of Belmar.

29

100. The Defendant, Brian Magovern, was at all times mentioned herein a

member of and Council President of the Borough Council of the Borough of Belmar

acting under the color of State law. The Defendant Magovern is joined only in his

capacity as an agent, servant, employee, representative and policy maker of Belmar.

101. The Defendant, Thomas Cox, was at all times mentioned herein a Belmar

police officer. Defendant Cox held the rank of Lieutenant until his promotion to the

rank of Captain; such appointments having been made by the Mayor and Council of

the Borough. The Defendant Cox is joined both individually and in his capacity as

agent, servant, employee and official policy maker of the Borough, acting within the

scope of his authority and under color of State law.

102. The Defendant, Tina Scott, was at all times mentioned herein a Belmar

officer. Defendant Scott held the rank of Lieutenant until her promotion to the rank

of Captain; such appointments having been made by the Mayor and Council of the

Borough. The Defendant Scott is joined both individually and in her capacity as

agent, servant, employee and official policy maker of the Borough, acting within the

scope of her authority and under color of State law.

103. The Defendant, Ted Bianchi, was at all times referred to herein the

Construction Code Official of the Belmar Construction Department. The Defendant

Bianchi was appointed by the Mayor and Council and served as the official responsible

for the administration and enforcement of the Uniform Construction Code in Belmar.

As such, the Defendant Bianchi was the final policy making authority in the

Construction Department; acted under color of State law and at the direction of the

30

Mayor and Council of Belmar. Defendant Bianchi is joined both individually and in

his capacity as an agent, servant, employee and official policy maker of Belmar.

104. The Defendant, Robert Poff, was at all times referred to herein the Code

Enforcement Officer of the Belmar Code Enforcement Department. The Defendant

Poff was appointed by the Mayor and Council and served as the official responsible for

the administration and enforcement of all ordinances within the Borough. As such, the

Defendant Poff was the final policy making authority in the Code Enforcement

Department; acted under color of State law and at the direction of the Mayor and

Council of Belmar. Defendant Poff is joined both individually and in his capacity as an

agent, servant, employee and official policy maker of Belmar.

105. The Defendants, John/Jane Doe 15 through John/Jane Doe 25, were at all

times mentioned herein agents, representatives, employees, attorneys or consultants

for the Borough and/or the Borough Council and/or the Borough Police Department,

and/or the Borough Construction Department acting within the scope of their

authority under color of State law. The Defendants are joined individually and in their

capacity as agents, servants, employees, representatives and/or policy makers of

Belmar.

CAUSES OF ACTION

The causes of action below incorporate each and every foregoing allegation as if

set forth fully herein. For the purpose of emphasis, the causes of action contain specific

factual allegations intended to be indicative of the overall claims supported by all of

the foregoing factual allegations.

31

COUNT I

Multiple Violations of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

106. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the

preceding paragraphs and incorporate same as if set forth fully herein.

Police Department

107. The Defendants Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Palmisano, Cox, Scott and

the defendant members of the Borough Council between 2015 and 2017, intentionally

and unlawfully caused the Belmar police department to disrupt the operation of the

Boathouse Bar and Grill through a pattern of threats, intimidation, arbitrary

enactments and fraud, in violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process of

law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

108. On multiple occasions, including during holiday weekends such as

Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, the Defendant Huisman has ordered police

officers to visit the Boathouse; falsely allege that it was in violation of ABC laws and

regulations and to threaten Plaintiffs with closure. On multiple occasions, such police

officers have told the Plaintiffs and their managers that they “know this is bullshit,”

and that they were “just doing what I’ve been told to do”.

109. The aforesaid Defendants in 2015 and 2016 intentionally and unlawfully

caused the alcoholic beverage license transfer of the license formerly operated at 507

Main to the Salt property to be intentionally delayed and arbitrarily denied in

violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth

32

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

110. At all relevant times, Defendant Doherty was, as the highest elected

official in Belmar, a final official policy maker for the Borough. At all relevant times,

Defendants Huisman and Palmisano were official policy makers for Belmar and its

Police Department. At relevant times, the Defendant Borough Council members, who

held office between 2015 and 2017, were, as members of the highest legislative body in

Belmar, official policy makers for the Borough. As such, the actions of the defendants

listed in this paragraph constituted the official policy of Belmar, at all times relevant to

this Complaint.

111. Plaintiffs had vested property interests in the 507 Main license, the

leasehold at the Salt property, and the property and business Boathouse Bar and Grill,

which were damaged and/or destroyed by the illegal acts of Belmar personnel, and at

the direction of the Defendants’ official policy makers of Belmar.

112. Plaintiffs are persons and citizens within the meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to those rights guaranteed to all persons within the

jurisdiction of the United States.

Mayor and Borough Council

113. As stated above, Defendant Doherty took actions to harm Plaintiffs’

businesses in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First Amendment rights of free

expression and to petition the government in opposition to State legislative efforts to

extend the period of operation for seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses, which would

33

benefit contributors to Defendant Doherty’s political campaigns, such as D’Jais.

114. The Defendants Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Palmisano, Cox, Scott and

certain members of the Borough Council between 2015 and 2017, intentionally and

unlawfully took actions to delay the investigation of Plaintiffs’ application for transfer

of their alcoholic beverage license from 507 Main to the Salt facility; generated false

and fraudulent opposition thereto and denied said application, intentionally denying

Plaintiffs’ use of their leasehold interest in the Salt property. As described above,

these practices violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

115. The Defendants Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Palmisano, Cox, Scott and

certain members of the Borough Council between 2015 and 2017, intentionally and

unlawfully took actions to place arbitrary and unreasonable special conditions on

Plaintiffs’ liquor license for the Boathouse Bar and Grill. By way of example, but not

limitation, the Borough Council placed conditions on Plaintiffs’ liquor license for the

Boathouse Bar and Grill that required Plaintiffs to (a) clean the neighborhood

surrounding the Boathouse after closing, a task that should be performed by the

Borough’s Public Works Department, and to (b) use “Shush Patrols” to control the

noise in the neighborhood surrounding the Boathouse, a task that should be

performed by the Belmar Police Department. In addition, they engaged in other

efforts to harm, harass and intimidate the Plaintiffs and the Boathouse in order to

promote the business of D’Jais and Chef’s International. As described above, these

practices violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth

34

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

116. At all relevant times, Defendant Doherty was, as the highest elected

official in Belmar, a final official policy maker for the Borough. At all relevant times,

Defendants Huisman and Palmisano were official policy makers for Belmar and its

Police Department. At all relevant times, the Borough Council members, who held

office between 2015 and 2017, were, as members of the highest legislative body in

Belmar, official policy makers for the Borough. As such, the actions of the defendants

listed herein constituted the official policy of Belmar, at times relevant to this

Complaint.

117. Plaintiffs had vested property interests in the 507 Main license, in the

leasehold at the Salt property and in the Boathouse Bar and Grill property and

business which were damaged and destroyed by the illegal acts of Belmar personnel,

and at the direction of the official policy makers of Belmar.

118. Plaintiffs are persons and citizens within the meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to those rights guaranteed to all persons within the

jurisdiction of the United States.

Mayor, Administrator, Borough Council and Construction Department: Construction Official Bianchi; Code Enforcement Officer Poff

119. The Defendants Doherty, Connolly, certain members of the Borough

35

Council as constituted between 2015 and 2017, Code Enforcement Officer Poff and

Construction Official Bianchi intentionally and unlawfully implemented a scheme and

policy to delay, damage and destroy the Salt project through fabricated and

fraudulently alleged Uniform Construction Code, CAFRA and Belmar Code

violations. As described herein, these acts violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process of

law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

120. At all relevant times, the Defendants listed in the preceding paragraph

were official policy makers for Belmar. As such, the actions of the Defendants

complained of herein constituted the official policy of Belmar.

121. Plaintiffs had vested property interests in the Salt property, which were

damaged and destroyed by the illegal acts of said Defendants.

122. Plaintiffs are persons and citizens within the meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Unites States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to those rights guaranteed to all persons within the

jurisdiction of the United States.

COUNT II

Multiple Violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

123. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth in the

preceding paragraphs and incorporate same as if set forth fully herein.

124. Defendants Borough of Belmar; Doherty; Connolly; Borough Council

members named as defendants above; Borough employees and representatives named

36

as defendants above; Code Enforcement Officer Poff; Construction Official Bianchi;

named as defendants above; the Police Department; Chiefs Huisman and Palmisano

and the other police officers named as defendants above; and as yet to be identified

defendants John/Jane Doe 15-25; acted in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution. Said defendants intentionally implemented a policy of

selectively enforcing state and local laws against Plaintiffs. The intent and effect of

this policy was to (a) interfere with Plaintiffs’ businesses; (b) to deny Plaintiffs the

lawful and permissible use of their liquor licenses and properties; (c) to cause

Plaintiffs to expend significant financial resources to defend the use of their

properties; (d) to retaliate against Plaintiffs for refusing to accede to the demands of

Defendants Doherty and Connolly and the political goals of Defendant Doherty; (e) to

retaliate against Plaintiffs for their participation in the legislative process; (f) to favor

and promote the interests of other businesses with personal, political and financial ties

to Doherty; and (g) to terminate the Salt project.

125. All of the Defendants set forth in the preceding paragraph were and/or

are official policy makers for Belmar.

126. Plaintiffs have vested property interests in both the 507 Main license and

leasehold on the Salt property and the Boathouse Bar and Grill property, business and

lease. Those property interests are protected by the United States Constitution.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Plaintiffs are

entitled to equal protection of the law.

COUNT III

37

Violation of RICO

127. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

128. Each of the individual Plaintiffs are and at all relevant times was a

“person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).

129. Defendants Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Palmisano, Nicolay, Keown-

Blackburn, Brennan and all of the other defendants that are not government entities,

are “persons” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c) (collectively

referred to in Count III of this Complaint as “RICO defendants”).

130. Belmar and its affiliated, subordinate entities (Police Department,

Borough Council, Construction Department, Code Enforcement Department)

constitute “enterprises” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c), which

were engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this

Complaint. Belmar is a resort community in which the population dramatically

increases during the summer months as many individuals live in the Borough during

the summer and return to their permanent homes thereafter outside of the State.

Additionally, the Borough licenses and regulates businesses which place articles in

interstate commerce and purchase articles for interstate commerce. Also, the Borough

purchases goods and services from vendors engaged in interstate commerce. Where

necessary, these enterprises are referred to as “RICO enterprises” for the purposes of

Count III of this Complaint.

38

131. Each of the RICO Defendants is and/or was associated with one or more

of the RICO enterprises. Upon information and belief, Rico defendants conspired to,

and did, operate Belmar, the Borough Council, the Police Department, the

Construction Department, and the Code Enforcement Department, through a pattern

of “racketeering activity” in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).

Upon multiple, repeated and continuous violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5 et seq.

(extortion and attempted extortion); multiple violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 et seq.

(forgery and related offenses), and Common Law Fraud; and violations of N.J.S.A.

2C:27-3 et seq. (threats and other improper influence in official political matters); and

various other illegal acts, as yet unknown, but which Plaintiff will identify through

the course of discovery.

132. Plaintiffs suffered substantial injury to their businesses and/or property

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), due to RICO defendants’ violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1962(c). Plaintiffs’ injuries include, but are not limited to, lost or reduced

sales and revenue from the operation of the Boathouse Bar and Grill; the loss of

prospective sales and revenue from the Salt facility; the loss of substantial funds used

to design and construct the Salt facility; the destruction of many years of good will

that Plaintiffs built for their 507 Main and Boathouse Bar and Grill businesses; and the

tens of thousands of dollars that Plaintiffs spent on legal fees and other fees to defend

against the illegal actions of the Defendants.

Predicate Acts Under RICO and NJ-RICO

133. For the purpose of clarity, the predicate acts listed below (which constitute

39

“racketeering activity” as defined in RICO and/or NJ-RICO) expressly incorporate

some of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. However, Plaintiffs

incorporate, repeat, and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the foregoing

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

i. Multiple Acts of Extortion in Violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5 et seq. and Common Law Extortion

134. The acts of extortion alleged herein, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5(a-f)

and the common law of extortion, are “racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A) and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(a)(1)(h).

135. The pattern of racketeering activity described throughout this Complaint

includes multiple acts of extortion directed at Plaintiffs. Each of the actions and

events described below constitutes a threat communicated with the intention

wrongfully to obtain objects of value from Plaintiffs and is chargeable as extortion

under New Jersey law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year

(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5 et seq.).

136. Each of the events described below and elsewhere herein constitutes a

threat to injure Plaintiffs’ character and property and/or accuse Plaintiffs of an

offense, undertaken with the specific intent to extort money, property and pecuniary

benefit from Plaintiffs and is chargeable as extortion and attempted extortion under

New Jersey law and is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (N.J.S.A.

2C:20-5 et seq.).

137. As stated above, Defendant Doherty attempted to force the owner of the

40

Loko property to agree to a new partnership and Redevelopment Agreement with

Defendant Doherty’s preferred developers and urged Loko to terminate its

relationship with Plaintiffs.

138. After Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew Harmon communicated to State

legislators in June 2015 and January 2016 their opposition to State legislative efforts to

extend the period of operation of seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses, Defendants

Doherty and others threatened “to get” the Plaintiffs and interfered with Plaintiffs’

legitimate business operations, in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ opposition to the legislative

efforts. As a result of the conduct of Defendants Doherty and others, Defendant

Doherty benefited from the competitive advantage gained by Plaintiffs’ competitors,

such as D’Jais, which contributed tens of thousands of dollars which were passed

through to Defendant Doherty’s political campaigns.

139. Defendants Doherty and Connolly threatened the jobs of Defendants

Construction Official Bianchi and Code Enforcement Officer Poff making it clear that

they would not continue to have a job with Belmar unless they utilized their positions

to harass, fine and interfere with the completion of the Plaintiffs’ Salt facility. Acting

under color of state law, those Defendants, at the behest of the Defendants Doherty

and Connolly, falsely alleged and cited Plaintiffs for non-existent Uniform

Construction Code violations and, acting under color of law, demanded that Plaintiffs

pay fines; cease work; and abandon the Salt project.

140. The RICO Defendants wanted Plaintiffs to abandon the Salt project, which

would inure great political and personal benefit to Defendants Doherty, Connolly and

41

their favored businesses who did not want another outdoor café/bar facility to open

on the waterfront in Belmar.

141. The property right demanded from Plaintiffs was the right to open and

operate their business and Defendants sought political and personal benefit from

taking away Plaintiffs’ property rights. The RICO Defendants threatened to take

and/or withhold official action. The Plaintiffs continued in their efforts to open the

Salt facility. When Plaintiffs resisted, the RICO Defendants took official action against

them.

ii. Forgery and Related Offenses in Violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 and Common Law Fraud.

142. Forgery, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1 et seq., is “racketeering activity”

within the meaning of NJ-RICO, Forgery and Common Law Fraud are “racketeering

activity” within the meaning of RICO.

143. Upon information and belief, Defendants Huisman, Cox and Scott, with

the purpose to defraud or injure Plaintiffs, and/or with knowledge that they were

facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetuated by another, without authorization,

altered or changed multiple writings, interviews and statements during the

investigation and contained in the Belmar Police Department 507 Main transfer

investigation file. (See paragraph 58 herein)

144. Upon information and belief, the Defendants, with the purpose of

defrauding or injuring Plaintiffs, and/or with knowledge that they were facilitating a

42

fraud or injury to be perpetuated by another, without authorization, altered or

changed multiple statements of witnesses contained in the Belmar Police Department

507 Main transfer investigation file. (See paragraph 58 herein)

iii. Threats and Other Improper Influence in Official and Political Matters in Violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3

145. Threats and improper influence in official political matters, in violation of

N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3, are “racketeering activity” within the meaning of RICO and NJ-

RICO.

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3, a person commits an offense if he directly or indirectly: (1) Threatens unlawful harm to any person with purpose to

influence a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion of a public servant, party official or voter on any public issue or in any public election; or

(2) Threatens harm to any public servant with purpose to influence a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or exercise of discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; or

(3) Threatens harm to any public servant or party official with purpose to influence him to violate his official duty.

It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way, whether because he had not yet assumed office or lacked jurisdiction, or for any other reason.

146. The pattern of racketeering activity described throughout this Complaint

includes multiple acts of threats and improper influence in official and political

matters directed at both Plaintiffs and various government officials. Each and every

one of the foregoing factual allegations is repeated and re-alleged as if set forth fully

43

herein. Those officials who were threatened or improperly influenced include, but are

not limited to: Construction Official Bianchi; Code Enforcement Officer Poff;

Electrical Sub-Code Official Callahan and Fire Marshall John Rizzitello.

COUNT IV

Violation of NJ-RICO

147. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, particularly those set

forth in paragraphs 131 through 143.

148. Plaintiffs are, and at all relevant times were, persons within the meaning

of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(b).

149. Belmar, the Borough Council, the Police Department, the Construction

Department, and the Code Enforcement Department and all Defendants listed in this

Complaint are “persons” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(b) (and are collectively

referred to in Count IV of this Complaint as “NJ-RICO Defendants,” and where

necessary named individually as set forth in this Complaint).

150. Belmar and its affiliated, subordinated entities (Police Department,

Borough Council, Construction Department, Code Enforcement Department)

constitute “enterprises” as that term is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(c). Where

necessary, these enterprises are referred to as “NJ-RICO enterprises” for the purposes

of Count IV of this Complaint.

151. Upon information and belief, NJ-RICO Defendants conspired to, and did,

conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the management and operation of the

44

affairs of the NJ-RICO enterprises, in relationship to Plaintiffs through a “pattern of

racketeering activity,” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(d).

152. The Borough of Belmar participated as a “person” in the conduct of its

own affairs, as an “enterprise,” through a pattern of “racketeering activity,” as defined

by N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(b), (c), and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d), respectively. This conduct violated

N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(c).

153. As a result, Plaintiffs were proximately harmed by NJ-RICO Defendants’

illegal conduct. Plaintiffs suffered substantial injury to their business and/or

property, including but not limited to, lost or reduced sales and revenue from the

operation of the Boathouse; lost sales and revenues from 507 Main; the loss of

prospective sales and revenue from the Salt facility, the destruction of years of good

will that Plaintiffs built for their Boathouse Bar and Grill and 507 Main businesses,

and the tens of thousands of dollars Plaintiffs spent to defend themselves from the

illegal actions of the Defendants.

COUNT V

Intentionally interfering with a contractual relationship

154. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

155. The Defendants Borough, Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Nicolay, Keown-

Blackburn, Brennan, Magovern, Palmisano, Scott, Cox, Bianchi and Poff, as well as the

John and Jane Does referred to herein, were aware that the Plaintiffs were parties to a

Lease and Agreement with Loko, LLC, the designated redeveloper of the Loko

45

property/Salt property which agreement provided for the development and

operation of an outdoor restaurant/bar on the Loko property.

156. The aforesaid Defendants intentionally and without justification actually

and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual relationship with Loko, LLC

by failing and refusing to approve the place-to-place transfer of the Plaintiffs’ alcohol

beverage license; by failing to issue permits for the construction of the facility; by

issuing stop work orders and otherwise interfering with the construction of the

facility; by telling representatives of Loko, LLC that the Borough would never allow

the Salt facility to open and would never authorize the transfer of the Plaintiffs’

alcoholic beverage license, as well as by other intentional and unreasonable actions as

set forth herein.

157. The aforesaid actions of the Defendants have proximately caused the

Plaintiffs damages for which the Defendants are liable.

COUNT VI

Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage

158. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

159. The Defendants Borough, Doherty, Connolly, Huisman, Nicolay, Keown-

Blackburn, Brennan, Magovern, Palmisano, Scott, Cox, Bianchi and Poff, as well as the

John and Jane Does referred to herein, were aware that the Plaintiffs were parties to a

Lease and Agreement with Loko, LLC, the designated redeveloper of the Loko

property/Salt property for the development and operation of an outdoor

46

restaurant/bar on the Loko property.

160. The aforesaid Defendants intentionally and without justification actually

and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their prospective economic

advantage and contractual business relationship in which Plaintiffs had a reasonable

expectation of economic advantage.

161. The aforesaid Defendants are liable for damages therefor to the Plaintiffs.

COUNT VII

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

162. The conduct of Defendants Borough, Doherty, Connolly, Huisman,

Nicolay, Keown-Blackburn, Brennan, Magovern, Palmisano, Scott, Bianchi and Poff,

as well as the conduct of the John and Jane Does referred to herein, has been extreme,

outrageous and directed toward the Plaintiffs, Timothy Harmon and Matthew

Harmon.

163. The aforesaid conduct has been entered into in a fashion intended to

produce emotional distress or recklessly in deliberate disregard of the high degree of

probability that emotional distress would be caused to the Plaintiffs Harmon.

164. The aforesaid misconduct has proximately caused the Plaintiffs Harmon

emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

165. The aforesaid extreme and outrageous conduct has resulted in physical

injury, bodily harm and emotional distress to the Plaintiffs Harmon and the

incurrence of substantial funds for medical care, hospitalization and treatment.

166. The aforesaid Defendants are liable in damages therefor to the Plaintiffs

47

Harmon.

COUNT VIII

Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act

167. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

168. Through the aforesaid conduct, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of

their substantive due process and equal protection rights secured by the Constitution

of the United States, and of their substantive rights secured by the Constitution and

laws of the State of New Jersey.

169. Plaintiffs have suffered damages by this deprivation of rights.

COUNT IX

Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights

170. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

171. On June 8, 2015, a bill to extend the period of operation of seasonal

alcoholic beverage licenses was introduced in the State Senate Law and Public Safety

Committee. Between June 2015 and January 2016, Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew

Harmon, holders of year-round plenary alcoholic beverage licenses, communicated to

State legislators their opposition to efforts to extend the period of operation of

seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses, which efforts were backed by Defendant Doherty

and D’Jais.

172. At the end of 2015, Plaintiffs Timothy and Matthew Harmon testified

48

before the State Assembly Committee regarding their opposition to the extension of

the period of operation of seasonal alcoholic beverage licenses.

173. During the summer months of 2015, the Defendant Borough, through its

Police Department and Construction Department, interfered with and harassed the

Plaintiffs in the construction of the Salt facility; issued illegal and improper stop work

orders; and otherwise acted to disrupt and disturb the Plaintiffs’ project.

174. Belmar’s construction department failed and refused to make timely

inspections of work at Salt, as required by the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code

Act and Regulations. Plaintiffs’ contractors were forced to repeatedly call the

Construction Department for required inspections. When the contractors complained

that inspections on Salt were taking much longer to happen than was the usual

practice in Belmar, they were told by Bianchi that he had been instructed by

Defendant Connolly to “screw” the Harmons.

175. During the aforesaid period of time, the Defendant Connolly called Greg

Kapalko of Loko and told him that he “had to stop all work at the site because the

NJDEP had issued a CAFRA (Coastal Area Facilities Review Act) violation”.

Connolly directed Huisman to send police officers to the site to shut down the work.

When asked to produce a copy of the violation by Plaintiffs, neither Connolly nor

Huisman could do so. Kapalko later verified that no such violation ever existed and

that the NJDEP had never contacted the Borough.

176. Between June 2015 and January 2016, Defendant Huisman engaged in a

concerted effort to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ businesses and the construction of the

49

Salt facility. During that period of time, Huisman advised members of the Police

Department as well as other officials of the Borough, including construction and code

enforcement officials, to deny permits to the Plaintiffs; harassed the Plaintiffs in the

operation of their business at the Boathouse; arbitrarily denied Plaintiffs’ applications

for permits for the St. Patrick’s Day Parade; and advised other Borough officials that

they needed to be “team players” in the Borough’s efforts against the Plaintiffs.

177. During the summer and fall of 2015, and at the direction of Defendants

Doherty and Connolly, Defendants Palmisano, Huisman, Cox and Scott failed to

properly pursue the investigation of Plaintiffs’ application for alcoholic beverage

license transfer.

178. In the summer of 2016, Defendant Connolly attempted to convince a

resident who lived near the Boathouse to file complaints against the Boathouse

operation, despite the fact that the resident had never had reason to complain.

Connolly went so far as to have form complaint prepared to encourage residents to

sign against the Plaintiffs.

179. The Defendants Nicolay and Keown-Blackburn voted in the negative on

Plaintiffs’ application on the sole basis that the proposed “location was not

appropriate” for an outdoor tiki type bar due to potential noise and disturbance to

neighbors.

180. The Defendants did so despite knowing that the Borough Council had

previously approved and signed a Redevelopment Agreement that provided for such

an outdoor establishment to be located on the premises and despite the fact that the

50

Defendant Nicolay had participated in and voted in favor of the aforesaid

Redevelopment Agreement.

181. Although a bill to extend the time period for seasonal alcoholic beverage

licenses was passed by the legislature, the effort failed when Governor Chris Christie

vetoed the bill on or about May 11, 2017. The Plaintiffs worked closely with then

Assemblyman David Rible to convince the Governor that he should veto the

legislation.

182. Since the veto, both Doherty and the owners of D’Jais have told residents

and officials of Belmar that they “would get” the Harmons and Rible and that “the

Harmons will pay for this.”

183. On or about July 11, 2017, the Defendants Doherty, Nicolay, Brennan and

Magovern all voted in favor of Borough of Belmar Resolution 2017-120, authorizing

the execution of an Amendment to the Loko Redevelopment Agreement, which

allows for a restaurant, with outdoor bar component, on the exact same property on

which Salt was to be located.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief and judgment against all Defendants, as

follows: Compensatory and consequential damages to Plaintiffs’ business and

property, including but not limited to, lost or reduced sales, revenue and profits; the

expenses and legal fees that Plaintiffs incurred as a result of litigation arising from the

racketeering activity, the cost of legal fees, engineering fees, architectural fees and other

fees concerning the approval and construction of the Salt facility, in an amount to be

51

specifically proven, but a minimum of $10,000,00.00 owing to the acts and omissions of

the Defendants;

An additional amount to be proven at trial for the substantial loss of good will

and business opportunity suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the acts and omissions of

the Defendants;

Threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the acts and

omissions of the Defendants, including but not limited to the cost of investigations, the

costs of this suit (including reasonable attorney’s fees) and post judgment interest;

Exemplary and/or punitive damages against the Defendants Doherty, Connolly,

Huisman, Nicolay, Brennan, Keown-Blackburn, Palmisano, Cox, Scott, Bianchi and Poff

for their intentional willful, wanton, outrageous or malicious misconduct, characterized

by their evil or rancorous motive, ill will and intent to injure Plaintiffs’ or Defendants’

gross reckless or gross negligence evincing a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights;

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

Equitable relief as might be appropriate pursuant to applicable law, including

but not limited to:

Enjoining Defendants from continuing their scheme to extort Plaintiffs into

meeting their demands.

Enjoining Defendants from publishing in any format statements, reports, or press

releases designed to mislead the public and unlawfully interfere with Plaintiffs’

business relations;

52

Enjoining Defendants from interfering with the operation of the Boathouse Bar

and Grill in retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit;

Enjoining Defendants from preventing the Boathouse Bar and Grill from

operating as it has for the previous 20 years;

Enjoining Defendants from revoking or challenging Plaintiffs’ liquor licenses as a

result of this lawsuit;

Enjoining Defendants from making false allegations against Plaintiffs intended to

induce New Jersey regulatory agencies to investigate Plaintiffs; and

Compensatory damages against the Defendants Doherty, Connolly, Huisman,

Nicolay, Brennan, Keown-Blackburn, Magovern, Palmisano, Cox, Scott, Bianchi

and Poff for the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs, Harmon; and

Any such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to R. 4:5-1, the undersigned hereby certifies that the matter in

controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or of a

pending arbitration proceeding and no other action or arbitration proceeding is

contemplated.

I further certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents

now submitted to the Court, and they will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future

in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b).

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by

53

jury on all issues herein.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

PLEASE BE NOTIFIED, Roger J. McLaughlin, Esq. and Richard J. Shaklee, Esq.,

are hereby designated as trial counsel in the above-captioned litigation on behalf of

Plaintiffs, Timothy Harmon and Matthew Harmon.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Roger J. McLaughlin ROGER J. McLAUGHLIN McLAUGHLIN STAUFFER & SHAKLEE, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 6, 2018