Lexplug logoLexplug

Farris v. County of Camden

District Court, D. New Jersey
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13739, 61 F. Supp. 2d 307, 1999 WL 632636 (1999)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), a court must conduct a preliminary hearing to determine the admissibility of coconspirator hearsay statements when the admissibility depends on credibility determinations that cannot be resolved on summary judgment papers; additionally, under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, public entities are immune from liability for intentional torts requiring malice or scienter, such as common law fraud.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff Rahn J. Farris owned two commercial buildings in Camden, New Jersey, which he leased to the County of Camden for county operations.
  • Farris alleges that William Maguire, a county employee, told him that George Norcross, a political chairman, expected him to buy expensive tickets to a political fundraiser to be a 'team player.'
  • Farris refused to buy the tickets, claiming he could not afford them.
  • Subsequently, the County began withholding rent payments due to Farris and threatened to move out of the buildings.
  • County employees Mitchell and Benton entered into lease renegotiations with Farris, allegedly threatening that the County would move to the 'RCA Building' immediately if Farris did not agree to lower rent and a 30-day termination clause.
  • Farris alleges the County knew the RCA Building was not actually available for occupancy at that time.
  • Farris signed the unfavorable renegotiated leases under alleged economic duress.
  • Farris relies on testimony from his building manager that Defendants Palombi and Pearl stated the pressure was coming directly from Norcross, though Palombi and Pearl deny making these statements.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff filed a thirty-five count civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging federal RICO and state law claims.
  • Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the federal RICO claims.
  • Defendants Norcross and the Camden County Democratic Committee moved for sanctions and attorneys' fees.
  • Defendants Norcross and the Camden County Democratic Committee moved for summary judgment on all claims.
  • Defendant Camden County moved for summary judgment on all claims.
  • Defendant Mitchell moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a preliminary evidentiary hearing required to determine the admissibility of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception when the declarants deny making the statements, and can a public entity be held liable for common law fraud or conspiracy?


Opinions:

Majority - District Judge Orlofsky

Yes, regarding the evidentiary hearing, and No, regarding the public entity's liability for fraud. The Court held that it could not rule on the summary judgment motion regarding the conspiracy claims against Norcross because the only evidence linking him to the dispute was hearsay testimony. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), the plaintiff must prove a conspiracy existed by a preponderance of the evidence to admit such statements. Because the declarants denied making the statements, the admissibility turned on credibility, which required a Rule 104(a) hearing before the summary judgment decision. Regarding the County, the Court held that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act prevents public entities from being liable for acts requiring 'actual malice' or 'willful misconduct.' Since common law fraud requires scienter (intent to defraud), the County is immune as a matter of law. However, the County is not immune from claims of equitable fraud (seeking contract rescission) because equitable fraud does not require proof of intent.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for civil procedure and evidence students because it illustrates the intersection of summary judgment standards and evidentiary rulings. The court recognized that while summary judgment generally assumes the non-movant's evidence is true, the court acts as a gatekeeper for admissibility. When admissibility under the coconspirator exception (FRE 801(d)(2)(E)) relies on witness credibility, the court must hold a 'mini-trial' (Rule 104(a) hearing) rather than letting the hearsay go to a jury. Additionally, the case clarifies New Jersey municipal law by establishing that a political party chairman cannot conspire with the political committee he chairs, mirroring corporate law principles where an officer cannot conspire with their own corporation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Farris v. County of Camden (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"