IJ gets OK to join MTOTSA appeal City asked court to deny law firm co-counsel status BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer Scott Bullock The Institute for Justice (IJ) has won the right to be a part of the legal team representing a group of Long Branch residents in an ongoing legal battle to save their homes from condemnation by the city. The public interest law firm that specializes in defending private property rights was granted “pro hac vice” status by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on Dec. 4. “This is great news,” said IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock last week. “I am thrilled to be an official part of the case. We are going to fight very hard to keep these residents in their homes.” The decision gave IJ the right to act as co-counsel in an appeal of a lower court ruling brought on behalf of homeowners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) neighborhood. The City of Long Branch had asked the Appellate Court to deny pro hac vice status to the Arlington, Va.-based firm. Bullock, along with IJ attorneys Jeff Rowes and William H. “Chip” Mellor, will act as co-counsel with attorney Peter H. Wegener, of Bathgate, Wegener and Wolf, Lakewood, in the case. In October, IJ applied for pro hac vice status, which translates as “for this matter only.” Within days, the city filed a motion to block IJ from being admitted to the case. In its motion, IJ argued it should be allowed to join the appeal based on the fact that New Jersey residents have the right to retain the attorney of their choice and IJ attorneys are experts in the field of property rights. The city opposed the motion, arguing that there was no good reason for the court to admit IJ and also that IJ did not meet the requirements for pro hac vice status. A motion for pro hac vice status is required to be filed with the court by out-of-state attorneys seeking to be permitted to practice law in a state where they are not licensed. “The court rejected the city’s silly and unfounded motion,” Bullock said Thursday. “The city should have never even tried to do this. It was absurd of them to do it,” he said. “Now we can move on to the real issues of the case.” IJ represents homeowners across the country who are opposing the taking of their property through eminent domain for private redevelopment projects. The firm represented Connecticut homeowner Suzette Kelo in the June 2005 Kelo v. New London (Conn.) case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of New London, permitting a private development company to acquire Kelo’s property and 15 others in the neighborhood for a waterfront redevelopment project. Bullock said at the time of the decision that the 5-4 split was nearly an equal division among the justices and added that it would not be the last word in IJ’s fight for property rights. IJ was founded in 1991 and has been required to file for pro hac vice in all of its cases, Bullock said. “We have had well over 100 cases,” Bullock said. “And we have never been denied [pro hac vice]. “To the best of my knowledge, I recall only being challenged for the status two times,” he said, “and both times the courts granted us pro hac vice.” Wegener and the IJ attorneys are appealing a ruling by state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that affirmed the city’s right to take the homes of some 20 residents in the three-street neighborhood for a private oceanfront redevelopment project. Bullock and Wegener plan to file their opening brief in the case on Jan. 3, according to Bullock. Plans for the redevelopment project call for the modest homes to be razed and replaced with luxury condominiums. IJ will be arguing the constitutional issues in the case, according to Bullock, who said Wegener will be dealing primarily with the statutory claims. “We are constitutional attorneys,” Bullock said, “that is our specialty.” IJ will argue that the redevelopment project is not a public use as stipulated under eminent domain statutes as well as challenge whether the neighborhood’s blight designation was based on substantial evidence, Bullock said. Wegener will focus on arguing that conflicts of interest existed between city officials and attorneys involved in the redevelopment project, according to Bullock. Wegener will additionally argue the issue of whether the city negotiated in good faith with the MTOTSA property owners, according to Bullock. “We are going to exhaust every legal avenue available,” Bullock said. “We plan to pull out all the stops.”