i r: Case Documenii Filed 03i04f2009 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY LEONARD LEONARD, P.A. 165 Washington Street Ne Jersey 07960 (973) 984-1414 Attorney for Plaintiff T.S., A Minor, by her Parent and Natural Guardian, T.G., . and 118. individually, Civil Action No. 09 9?30 Plaintiff, 3 COMPLAINT vs. CITY OF GARFIELD, CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, JOHN DOES (1-10) unknown defendants, Defendants. Plaintiff, T.S., a minor, age sixteen on the date of the incident (currently 19 years of age) and as her parent and natural guardian, and T.G. Individually, residing in the City of Gar?eld, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, by way of Complaint against the defendants, alleges and says: 1. PARTIES 1. At relevant times herein, defendant City of Garfield was and is a public entity and/or a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey. i (I Case Document 1 Filed 03(0412009 Page 2 of 22 2. At all relevant times herein the defendant City of Gar?eid Police Department was and Is a public entity and/or a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a place of business at 411 Midland Avenue, Garfield, New Jersey. 3. The Gar?eld Police Department ls part of the municipal government of the City of Garfield and is responsible for providing police services for the City of Gar?eld. 4. At all relevant times herein, defendant City of Gar?eld, Chief of Police Kevin Amos, was the chief supervisory official and Chief of Police of the Gar?eld Police Department acting in his of?cial capacity under color of law. This defendant is being sued in both his individual and of?cial capacities. 5. At all relevant times herein defendant Todd Mosby was and is employed by the defendant City of Gar?eld and/or Gar?eld Police Department as a police of?cer acting in his of?cial capacity under color of law. This individual is being sued in both his individual and official capacities. 6. The defendant John Does (1?10) which names are ?ctitious as the true identities of these defendants are unknown to date are individuals who knew, participated in, and/or reasonably should have known or knowingly condoned and/or covered up the acts and/or omissions of the defendants City of Garfield Police Department, Chief Kevin Amos, and Officer Todd i, (. Case Document 1 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 3 of 22 Mosby. Furthermore, any and all aiiegations set forth herein shail be directed at each of them individually and in their official capacities. II. JURISDICTION 7. This suit arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 together with pendent state claims. 8. The court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' Federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as an action arising out of the constitution of the United States and 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), to redress the deprivation under the color of state law, of rights secured by the constitution of the United States; and over plaintiffs' pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 9. The court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the declaratory judgment act, 28 U.S.C. 2001, at. m. 10. The court has authority to award costs and attorneys fees porsuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. 11. Venue is properly laid in the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because all defendants reside in this district, and the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this District. Case Document 1 Filed 03(0412009 Page 4 of 22 FIRST COU NT 12. At all times mentioned herein, the CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT was a duly authorized police department. 13. At all times mentioned herein, defendant Officer TODD MOSBY was an employee, agent or servant of defendant CITY OF GARFIELD and CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT and was at all times acting In the course of that employment. The defendant John Does (1-10) which names are ?ctitious as the true identities of these defendants are unknown to date are individuals who knew, participated in, and/or reasonably should have known or knowingly condoned and/or covered up the acts and/or omissions of the defendants City of Gar?eld, City of Gar?eld Police Department, Chief Kevin Amos, and Of?cer Todd Mosby. 14. On or about August 1, 2006 at approximately 2:00 am, Defendant, Of?cer TODD MOSBY while on his tour of duty and in the course of employment with the defendants, did illegally, improperly and without probable cause lure; detain; restrain; sexualiymolest; fondle; humiliate; de?le; harass, menace, assault and restrict plaintiff, T.S. (Who at the time was a minor of 16 years of Age). The defendant, Officer TODD MOSBY committed official misconduct, abused his authority and power and otherwise violated plaintiff?s civil rights by touching her intimate parts and/or engaged in Inappropriate touching and/or kissing and/or engaged in inappropriate sexual conversations with TS. with the purpose to benefit himself and injure -4- Case Document 1 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 5 of 22 the Plaintiff, T.S. The defendant, OFFICER TODD MOSBY abused plaintiff, T.S. by performing an indecent, Immoral act or deed in plaintiff?s presence namely, engaging in sexual conversations which would tend to debauch, endanger or degrade the morals of plaintiff, T. 8. While the defendant had the care and control of plaintiff, T5. 15. The defendant, OFFICER TODD MOSBY committed of?cial misconduct and otherwise violated plaintiff's civil rights by transporting plaintiff in an unauthorized manner and/or restraining plaintiff within the police vehicle assigned to him during his tour of duty with the purpose to benefit himself and injure plaintiff. There was no probable cause for the illegal detainment, restraint, and/or restriction, whereby the defendants acted in a negligent, careless and reckless manner towards the plaintiff, T5. 16. The conduct of defendants, THE DEFENDANTS, CITY OF GARFIELD and/or THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, and/0r CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, TODD MOSBY, John Does, (1-10) aforesaid who was/were acting individually, jointly and in conspiracy with the other defendants, resulted in plaintiff being falsely, maliciously and unlawfully detained and restrained, thereby depriving plaintiff, T3. of her right to be free from the unreasonable detainment to the Equal Protection of the law and to Due Process of law In violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States including but not limited to the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USCA -5- Case Document 1 Filed 03/04f2009 Page 6 of 22 1983, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey including but not limited to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, NJSA 10:62, New Jersey Child Sex Abuse Act. The defendants conduct was palpably unreasonable. 17. All of the acts aforesaid were undertaken in a willful and malicious manner with an immoral purpose and to unjustly bene?t defendants and to injure the reputation, standing, and integrity of Plaintiff, T5. to her detriment, and defendants are therefore liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants and their misuse of authority and gross misconduct, and particularly their willful, Intentional, false, malicious, reckless, or grossly negligent actions in luring; detaining; restraining; sexually molesting; fondling, humiliating, de?ling, harassing, menacing, assaulting and restraining plaintiff, plaintiff was greatly humiliated and disgraced, suffered great mental and physical anguish, suffered severe damage to her reputation and standing in the community, and has otherwise been damaged and injured in diverse other manners to her great detriment. The incident in question and the injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff, T.S., related thereto, did occur without any negligence on the part of T.S., which would bar her recovery against the defendants in the within cause of action. The minor plaintiff, T.S., has complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 {if applicable hereto). Case Document 1 Filed 03/042009 Page 7 of 22 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for damages against defendants, THE DEFENDANTS, CITY OF GARFIELD and/0r THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, and/or CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, TODD MOSBY, and John Does, (1?10) for both compensatory and punitive, together with reasonable attorney?s fees, lawful interest, and costs of suit. SECOND COUNT 19. Plaintiff repeats all the allegations contained in the First Count of the Complaint as though set forth fully at length. 20. The conduct of Of?cer TODD MOSBY acting individually and together and in conspiracy with the other defendants, resulted in plaintiff being falsely, maliciously and unlawfully detained and thereby deprived plaintiff of her right to be free frorn unreasonable and unlawful seizure of her person, to the equal protection of the law and to due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States including but not limited to the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USCA 1983, and the Constitutlon and laws of the State of New Jersey including but not limited to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, NJSA 10:6?2 and the New Jersey Child Sex Abuse Act. 21. All of the acts aforesaid were undertaken in a willful and malicious manner with an immoral purpose and to unjustly enrich the defendants and to injure the reputation, standing and integrity of plaintiff, to her detriment, and defendants are, therefore, liable to plaintiff for punitive damages in -7- Case Dooument?i Fiied 03/04/2009 Page 8 of 22 addition to compensatory damages. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants as aforesaid, and particularly of their willful, intentional, false, malicious, reckless, or grossly negligent actions in luring; detaining; restraining; sexually molesting; fondling; humiliating; defiling; harassing, menacing, assaulting and restricting and imprisonlng plaintiff, plaintiff was greatly humiliated and disgraced, suffered great mental and physical anguish, suffered severe damage to her reputation and standing in the community, was forced to undergo the rigors and strain of a false detention and imprisonment and has otherwise been damaged and injured in diverse other manners to his great detriment. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for damages against the defendants, both compensatory and punitive, together with reasonable attorney?s fees, lawful interest, and costs of suit. THIRD COUNT 23. Plaintiff repeats all the allegations contained in the First and Second, and Counts of the Complaint as though set forth fully at length. 24. Of?cer TODD MOSBY used excessive force in implementing his unreasonable and unlawful seizure of plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States including but not limited to the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 USCA 1983, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey including but not limited {5 Case Document 1 Filed 03i04/2009 Page 9 of 22 to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, NJSA 10:6?2. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for damages against the defendants, both compensatory and punitive, together with reasonable attorney's fees, lawful interest, and costs of suit. FOURTH COUNT 25. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the First, Second and Third Counts of the Complaint as though set forth fully at length. 26. At all times mentioned herein, the defendants, CITY OF GARFIELD and/0:" THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, and/or CHIEF KEVIN AMOS were the employer of the individual defendants who were acting as its agents, servants and employees. 27. THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF KEVIN AMOS failed to use reasonable care in the selection of its employees, agents and servants, failed to properly train and supervise the Individual defendants, and failed to provide appropriate safeguards to prevent the unlawful conduct described resulting in the violation of plaintiff's civil rights. 28. THE CITY OF GARFIELD THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, TODD MOSBY acted under color of law pursuant to its of?cial policy or custom and practice and intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with deliberate indifference failed to prooerly and adequately control and discipline on a continuing basis the individual defendants in the performance of their duties and otherwise failed to refrain -9- Case Document?l Fiied 0310412009 Page 10 of 22 the individual defendants from the unlawfui conduct described resulting in the violation of plaintiff?s civil rights. 29. THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS had knowledge of or had it diligently exercised its duties to instruct, supervise, control, and discipline the individual defendants on a continuing basis should have had knowledge of the wrongs that were done as alleged and intentionally, knowingly, or with deliberate indifference to the rights of piaintiff failed or refused to prevent their commission. 30. The defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHIEF KEVIN AMOS directly or indirectly and under color of law thereby approved or rati?ed the unlawful, deliberate, malicious, reckless and wanton conduct of the individual defendants. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY for both compensatory and punitive damages, together with reasonable attorney?s fees, lawful interest, and costs of suit. COUNT Intentional and Negligent Infiiction of Emotional Distress 31. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 - 30 as if fully set forth herein. 32. During the period she remained in their custody and detention, the -10.. Case Document'i Filed 03042009 Page 11 of 22 defendants, herein, THE CITY OF GARFIELD and THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Does (1-10), their agents, servants and employees, engaged in actions intended to in?ict severe emotional trauma upon plaintiff, T.S.. 33. By reason of the foregoing, T.S. suffered emotional trauma and has been damaged. 34. By reason of the aforesaid intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress, plaintiff was caused to suffer severe, painful and permanent personal injuries, sustained severe nervous shock, mental anguish and great physical pain was compelled to undergo medical aid and treatment and was prevented from engaging in her usual activities. 35. By reason of the foregoing plaintiff T.S has been damaged. WHEREFORE, plaintiff T.S. demands judgment against defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Does (1-10), jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. SIXTH COUNT As to Defendants John Does 1?10 Negligence and?or Gross Negligence 36. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 35 as if fully set forth herein. The defendants John Doe (1-10) are responsible by their .11. Case Document 1 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 12 of 22 knowledge, action and/or inaction, as if all allegations subsequently set forth herein pertaining to all defendants were set forth herein as to these said defendants. 38. The acts of said defendants, described herein above, were undertaken and/or enabled by and/or during the course and/or within the scope of his/her employment, appointment and/or agency with any of the defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe (1-10) 39. At all times, materiai hereto, said defendants knew and/or reasonably should have known of the unreasonable danger to plaintiff, T.S., due to defendants deviations from accepted police standards and practice. 40. Said defendants knew and/or reasonably should have known that defendants posed an unreasonable risk of abuse and harm to plaintiff. 41. Defendants owed plaintiff a duty to protect her directly and/or indirectly from defendants, both prior to and/or subsequent to the incident. 42. Said defendants? paipably unreasonable, willful, wanton and/or grossly negligent act(s) of commission and/or omission, resulted directly, and/or proximately in the damage set forth herein. 43. But for said defendants' knowledge of defendant's failure to act in conformance with accepted poiice practice and procedure and/or their willful, wanton andfor grossly negligent act(s) of commission and/or omission, plaintiff would not have been harmed in the matter in which she is presently harmed. ?12- Case Document 1 Filed Page 13 of 22 44. As a direct result of said conduct, plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiff T.S. demands judgment against defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe (1-10), jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. SEVENTH COUNT As to All Defendants Intentional Misconduct and/or Gross Neoligence 45. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 - 44 as if fully set forth herein. 46. Prior to the dates of unlawful stop, detention, search and seizure and/or arrest, defendants had been known, or should have been known to defendants to be ?rogues? with a pattern of deviating from accepted police practice and procedure for his/their own bene?t, utilizing hisftheir position as an employee, agent, servant of the Gar?eld Police Department to the detriment of the public. 47. After learning through complaints from the public and other victims, of?cers, directors, employees, agents, servants and/or volunteers of the other defendants that Of?cer TODD MOSBY, had utilized his position as an of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer of the Gar?eld Police -13- Case Document ?1 Filed Page 14 of 22 Department, the defendants deliberately and/or outrageously allowed him and/or assigned him to positions as an officer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer in the GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT where he would have full access to the public, including plaintiff, who had no awareness of the improper pattern and practices, thereafter, they failed to remove or suspend defendant Officer TODD MOSBY from his duties as of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer or otherwise act to stop him from pursuing their rogue schemes on the public, including but not limited to plaintiff, after receiving complaints and/or reliable information that defendant was engaging in such illegal and improper activities. 48. The actions of said defendants as alleged in the preceding paragraphs constituted intentional misconduct and/or gross negligence andfor paipabiy unreasonable conduct with the harm which befeil plaintiff as a directly foreseeable consequence. 49. At all times material hereto, the defendants were grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious, reckless and outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of the public in general, as well as to the plaintiff. 50. As a direct result of the tortuous conduct, plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiff T.S. demands judgment against defendants THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe (1-10), jointly and -14- Case Document 1 Filed 031042009 Page 15 of 22 severally for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. EIGHTH COUNT Negligence and/or Gross Negligence in the Hiring Supervision of Defendant, Officer Todd Mosbv 51. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 51 as if fully set forth herein. 52. Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of defendant OFFICER TODD proclivities and/or ImprOper behavior toward others, including but not limited to the plaintiff and it is therefore reasonably foreseeable, that, in the ordinary course of discharging an officer's, employees, agents, servants and/or volunteer duties, an officer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer might present a threat of injury to the public. 53. Defendants as set forth herein, had actual and/or constructive knowledge that defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY was a rogue and/or had propensities to freelance for his own benefit involving the public and was un?t to perform his employment responsibilities, duties and/or obligations as an of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer, and was a severe danger to the public including plaintiff. 54. Said defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in continual formation of an officer, employee, agent, servant andfor volunteer, including the screening, selection, training, supervision, retention, -15- Case Document 1 Filed Page 16 of 22 assignment, transferring, appointment and/or employing of defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY, for the work assigned to him and for purposes of determining his ?tness for access to the public, including plaintiff and was negligent and/or grossly negligent in that said defendant failed to adopt and establish reasonable or adequate policies, guidelines, or other means whereby they would learn to recognize an officer?s, employee?s, agent?s, servant?s, and/or volunteers propensity for rogue, deviant behavior or the behavior itself, failed to adequately screen and/or investigate TODD MOSBY, regarding his candidacy for an employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer; furthermore, the defendants also failed to adequately investigate the aforementioned defendants prior activities and/or behavior with regard to the public and failed to adequately monitor and/or investigate defendant OFFICER TODD conduct during his training, and conduct prior to each change in assignment and/or appointment of defendant TODD MOSBY as an of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer, particoiarly through defendant TODD assignments and/or appointed position(s) with defendants, CITY OF GARFIELD, GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, and/or John Does (1?10) and thereafter. 55. The defendants had an ongoing duty to keep and maintain defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY under continuous and/or reasonable supervision that provided assurance that defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY was fit to perform his empioyment and/or assigned or appointed responsibilities and did not present a risk to the health, safety and welfare of -16- i? Case Document 1 Filed 03l041?2009 Page 17 of 22 those individuals, including plaintiff, who would reasonably be expected to come into contact with defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY as a result of his employment and/or duties and responsibilities of his assignments and/or appointments while an officer, employee, agent, servant andXor volunteer and to retain him only as long as he was fit and competent. 56. The defendant's breached their duty of care in that they failed to take any action to ensure that plaintiff was not harmed by defendant OFFICER TODD MOSBY despite their actual and/or constructive notice of defendant OFFICER TODD rogue conduct, more speci?cally, the defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN John Doe (1-10), negligently screened, selected, trained, retained, employed, assigned, transferred and/or appointed defendant TODD MOSBY, to the position of trust and authority as a officer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer at defendant, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN John Doe (1-10) in direct contact with the public and further negligently failed to provide adequate warning to plaintiff, negligently failed and refused to remove or suspend defendant TODD MOSBY, from his duties at his various assignments or appointments or as an of?cer, employee, agent, servant, and/or volunteer or otherwise act to prevent defendant TODD MOSBY from pursuing his rogue acts on the public, including plaintiff and to require him to report same to his victims, and otherwise failed to adopt and establish policies, guidelines, or other means protecting plaintiff, from an -17.. 5 Case Document 1 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 18 of 22 officer's employees, agents, servants and/0r voiunteer?s propensities for rogue behavior or the behavior itself. Additionaliy, the aforementioned negligent acts of commission and/or omission amounted to gross negligence by the defendants. 57. At all times material hereto, defendants actions were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless and/or outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of plaintiff. 58. As a direct result of said negligence and/or grossly negligent conduct, plaintiff T.S. has suffered the Injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, T.S. demands judgment against defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe (1-10), jointly and severally for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. NINTH COUNT As to All Defendants Respondeat Superior 59. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 - 58 as if fully set forth herein. 60. The defendants, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe are responsible to supervise and/or control officers, agents, servants ~18? Case Document 1 Filed 03i04'l2009 Page 19 of 22 and employees serving with the defendant, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT and Speci?cally had a duty not to aid defendant Of?cer TODD MOSBY by assigning, maintaining and/or appointing him to a position with access to the public, including through defendant TODD position as an officer, employee, agent, servant, and/or volunteer at defendant, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, John Doe (1-10) 61. In fulfilling their duties and responsibilities, the of?cers, employees, agents, servants andfor volunteers of the defendant, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, John Doe (lwl-O) while acting within the course and scope of their employment within the CITY OF GARFIELD, CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, had the authority to assign, appoint and/or remove defendant TODD MOSBY to, and/or from any assignment within the City of Gar?eld, and/or grant and/or withhold permission from Of?cer TODD MOSBY to exercise their faculties as an of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer in public within CITY OF GARFIELD. Additionally, defendant TODD MOSBY had a duty to receive and execute whatever orders were given to him by the defendants? supervisors and/or their agents, servants and/or employees, as well as a duty to submit to an accounting of his duties and responsibilities directly to defendants as well as to give them effective assistance in the administration of the CITY OF GARFIELD, CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT including consultation regarding the assignment of -19- i' Case Document 1 Filed 03/04/2009 Page 20 of 22 officers, employees, agents, servants andlor volunteers. 62. It is understood that in the course of providing police services, the purpose of same was to protect, serve, care, for and/or provide supervision to the public, as well as to give them attention with special diligence. Furthermore, such acts were within the course and scepe of defendant Officer TODD MOSBY, employment, duties, obligations, and/or responsibilities of a police officer. Said defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees were reasonably on notice that an of?cer could exploit the power of his position and that such relationship with the public as a symbol of the government and authority could enable that office to act as a rogue. 63. As an of?cer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer at defendant, THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, John Doe (1-10), TODD MOSBY who was acting as an officer, employee, agent, servant, and/or volunteer of defendant THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, within the course and scope of his agency and employment, and thereby gained access to plaintiff and used the powers and influence of his positions and status as an actual and apparent agent of defendants to unlawfully improperly and without probable cause lure; detain; restrain; sexually molest; fondle; humiliate; defile; harass, menace, assault and restrict the plaintiff, T. 8. while In the CITY OF GARFIELD. 64. As a direct result of said conduct, plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages described herein. i" {1 Case Document?l Filed 03/041'2009 Page 21 of 22 WHEREFORE, plaintiff, T.S. demands judgment against defendants THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. TENTH COUNT Plaintiff, T.G., Individually repeats and realleges all of the allegations of the First through Ninth Counts and makes the same a part hereof as though set forth at length herein and In addition thereto, she aileges that she was at all times and still is the mother of the plaintiff, T.S., residing with her at the same address. 2. By reason of the aforesaid, the plaintiff, T.G., Individually, was obliged to incur large expenses in the care and treatment of her daughter, T.S., and will be so obliged in the future and she was and will in the future be deprived of her usual services, society, earnings and companionship. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, T.G., Individually, demands judgment against defendants THE CITY OF GARFIELD, THE CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, John Doe (1-10), for compensatory and punitive damages together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys fees and other appropriate relief. -21- ij? Case Document 1 Filed 03/04l2009 Page 22 of 22 JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO The matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action in any Court or of any pending arbitration proceeding, nor are any such actions or arbitrations contemplated. There are no other known parties who should be joined in this actlon. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are false, I am subject to punishment for contempt of court. SCOTT G. ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff Dated March 3, 2009 -22.. e" a if PIRO ZINNA CIFELLI PARIS GENITEMPO, PC DANIEL R. REVERE (7565) 360 Passaic Avenue Nutley, NJ 07110 (973) 661?0710 Attorneys for Defendants City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY T.S., A Minor, by her Parent and Natural Guardian, T.G., and T.G. individually, Civil Action No. 09?950 (ORB) Plaintiff, ANSWER, AFFIRMATZVE DEFENSES, AND ON BEHALF OF v. CITY OF GARFIELD, CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY OF GARFIELD, CITY OF and CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, ONLY GARFIELD POLICE CHIEF KEVIN AMOS, OFFICER TODD MOSBY, JOHN DOES 1-10 (unknown defendants), Defendants. Defendants City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos, by way of Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs, do hereby say: I. PARTIES l. Defendants City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos (collectively ?Defendants?), admit the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 3. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 4. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 5. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 6. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph ?3 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. II . JURISDICTION 7. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 8. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 9. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 10. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. ll. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph ll of the Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. FIRST COUNT 12. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 12 of the First Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 13. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 13 of the First Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. l4. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the First Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 15. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the First Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. Nu. "a 16. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16 of the First Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 17 of the First Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 18. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18 of the First Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of? Garfield, City' of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. SECOND COUNT 19. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if the same were set forth at length herein. 20. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Second Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 21. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Second Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. 22. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Second Count of the Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. .335. THIRD COUNT 23. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First and Second Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 24. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Third. Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Garfield, City? of? Garfield Police Department and. Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together' with. attorneys? fees and costs. FOURTH COUNT 25. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Third Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 26. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 27. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 28. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 29. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 30. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Garfield, City' of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. FIFTH COUNT Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 31. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Fourth Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 32. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Fifth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 33- Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Fifth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 34. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Fifth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 35- Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Fifth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of' Garfield, City' of? Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the E?aintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. SIXTH COUNT As to Defendants John Does lulO Negligence and/or Gross Negligence 36. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Fifth Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 37. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 38. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 39. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 40. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 41. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 42. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 43. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 44. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Garfield, City? of? Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. SEVENTH COUNT As to All Defendants Intentional Misconduct and/or Gross Negligence 4S. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Sixth Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 46. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 47. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 48. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 49. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 50. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 50 of the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of? Garfield, City' of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin .Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together' with. attorneys? fees and costs. EIGHTH COUNT Negligence and/or Gross Negligence in the Hiring Supervision of Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby 51. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Seventh Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 52. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 53. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 54. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 55. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 55 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 56. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 56 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 57 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 58. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 58 of the Eighth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants City? of? Garfield, City -of -Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing ?the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together' with. attorneys? fees and costs. NINTH COUNT As to All Defendants Respondeat Superior 59. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Eighth Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 60. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 60 of the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 61. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 61 of the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 62- Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 62 of the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint. 63. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. 64. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. WHEREFORE, Defendants City' of Garfield, City' of' Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the E?aintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. 10 TENTH COUNT l. Defendants repeat and reiterate each and every response to the First through Ninth Counts of the Plaintiffs? Complaint as if same were set forth at length herein. 2. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or the falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Tenth Count of Plaintiffs? Complaint and leaves Plaintiffs to their proofs. WHEREFORE, Defendants City of Garfield, City of? Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos demand Judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs? Complaint, together with attorneys? fees and costs. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any and all damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs are due to the primary and/or intervening actions, inactions, omissions and/or negligence of third parties not under the control of the Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any and all damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs were solely and proximately caused by the Plaintiffs? own actions, inactions and/or contributory or comparative negligence. ll THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants deny any act, conduct or omission on their part that was the proximate cause of the alleged occurrence, injuries or damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs? Complaint fails to state a claim. upon which relief may be granted against the Defendants as a matter of law. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants did not breach any legal duty owed to the Plaintiff. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any and all injuries or damages alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs was/were the result of the contributory/comparative negligence of the Plaintiffs and therefore, the claims asserted by the E?aintiffs are barred or otherwise diminished pursuant to the provisions of the New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. 2A: 15?5.l et seq. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs? alleged damages are barred or otherwise limited by his failure to mitigate damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These Defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of third persons. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE This alleged occurrence resulted from circumstances and conditions beyond the control of these Defendants. l2 MN TENTH AFFIRMQTIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs? claims are barred or otherwise limited under the Collateral Source Doctrine. ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE The Plaintiffs? claims for punitive damages are barred and/or limited by the Punitive Damages Act, N.J.S.A. et seq- TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiffs? Complaint is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants? actions and conduct on the date and place was/were lawful, objectively reasonable, in good faith, and was/were otherwise supported by probable cause. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMAEIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs? claims are barred in part or in total by virtue of the fact that the Plaintiffs have not suffered a deprivation of any constitutionally or statutorily protected right. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants? actions and conduct on the date and place was/were privileged as a matter of law and therefore, Defendants are immune from civil liability. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE These Defendants acted in accordance with legal justification and probable cause based upon existing circumstances. l3 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants at all times acted in good faith and consistent with their understanding of the law and are thus entitled to qualified and/or absolute immunity. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants at all times complied with the relevant legal standards governing their authority to act as law enforcement personnel. NINETEENTH AFFIRMRTIVE DEFENSE Mere negligence CH1 the part c?f public officials, which is expressly denied in this case, is insufficient to support a claim under 42 USCA ?1983. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendants are entitled to and assert the immunities and protections afforded by all applicable provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1~l et seq. including, but not limited to, N.J.S.A. 59:2~l, 2?2, 2?3, 2H4, 2?10, 3?1, 3?2, 3-3, 3?4, 3?5, 3~8, 3~10, 5~4, 8?3, 8?8, 8?9, 8~10, 8?11, 9?2, 9?3, 9? 3.1, 9?4, 9?6 and 9H7, thus entitling Defendants to a partial or total dismissal of all claims. CROSSCLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION Defendants, City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos (collectively ?Defendants?), by way of Crossclamn against the co?Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby, allege and say: 1. In the event that it is determined that some or all of the allegations of the Plaintiffs? Complaint are true such that the Defendants are held liable to any party, then Defendants demand contribution from. the co?Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby, pursuant to the provisions of the New Jersey Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act, N.J.S.A. et. seq., the New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act, N.J.S.A. et. seq., and New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9~3 and 59:9m3.l. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully demand judgment against the co?Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby, for contribution, reasonable attorneys? fees,? costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper- SECOND COUNT 2. Defendants repeat the allegations made in the First Count of the Crossclaim as if set forth herein at length. 3. While denying any liability for any damages claimed by the Plaintiffs, Defendants assert that any and all injuries or damages alleged by the Plaintiff was/were the proximate result of the act(s) and/or omissionts) of the co~Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby, which act(s) and/or omission(s) was/were primary and active, whereas the liability of the Defendants was secondary, constructive, imputed, passive and/or vicarious. 4. As a :result; of 'the co?Defendants? act(s), omission(s) and/or conduct, Defendants are entitled to common law indemnification. 15 WHEREFORE, the Defendants demand judgment against the co? Defendant, Officer Todd Mosby, for common law and/or implied indemnification, together with reasonable attorneys? fees, costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR STATEMENT OF DAMAGES Defendants hereby request that the Plaintiffs furnish a written statement of damages claimed within five (5) days of the service of the within pleading. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Daniel R. Bevere, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel on behalf of the Defendants. PIRO, ZINNA, CIFELLI, PARIS GENITEMPO Attorneys for Defendants City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department and Chief Kevin Amos By Daniel R. Bevere DANIEL R. BEVERE, ESQ. (7565) Dated: June 16, 2009 A Member of the Firm 16 CERTIFICATION To the best of the undersigned?s knowledge, and based upon present information, Defendants certify that: the :matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action presently pending or contemplated in any Court and is likewise not the subject of any pending arbitration proceeding; and, (2) subject to the possible identification of fictitious persons/entities, no additional parties should be joined in this action at this time. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Daniel R. Bevere DATED: June 16, 2009 DANIEL R. BEVERE (7565) l7 rims. new? RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1? This Release and Settlement Agreement made this day of November, 2010, between and (hereinafter and the CITY OF GARFIELD, its officers, trustees, employees, agents and representatives, including but not limited to: the CITY OF GARFIEID POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE CHIEF KEVIN AMOS (hereinafter ?You?J . 1. Release. In consideration for the payment which we will receive as set forth below, we hereby voluntarily release and give up any and all claims and rights which we may have against the CITY OF GARFIELD, its officers, trustees, employees, agents and representatives, including but not limited to the CITY OF GARFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE CHIEF KEVIN AMOS. This Release, however, does not apply to Defendant Todd Mosby in his individual capacity and nothing in this Release shall be construed as a waiver of any rights or claims by and/or of the Plaintiffs against Todd Mosby in his individual capacity, and such rights and claims are hereby preserved. This Release applies to all claims resulting from anything which has happened up until the date we sign this Agreement and releases all claims, including those of which we are not aware and those not mentioned in this Release. We specifically release any and all claims arising out of the August 1, 2006 incident with former Garfield Police Officer Todd Mosby, which claims are the subject of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, titled a minor, by her parent and natural guardian, and T.G., individually v. City of Garfield, City of Garfield Police Department, Chief Kevin Amos and Officer Todd Mosby, Civil Action No. 2. Pa ent. We have been paid a total of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and other good and valuable consideration in full payment for the making of this Release. We agree that we will not seek any further or additional payment from You for the incident which occurred on August 1, 2006. 3. No Admission of Liability. Notwithstanding the Payment as set forth above, the CIT OF GARFIELD and the above stated entities and individuals being Released by this agreement deny any liability for the incident for which this Release is being given, and have entered this Release and Settlement Agreement solely to avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. 4. Who is bound. We are bound by this Release and Settlement Agreement. Anyone who succeeds to our rights and responsibilities, such as our heirs or the executors of our respective estates, are also bound. This Agreement is made for your benefit, the benefit of your attorneys and insurers, and all who succeed to your rights and responsibilities. 5. Signatures. We understand and agree to the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement. We have consulted with counsel prior to signing this Release and Settlement Agreement and we are satisfied that signing this Agreement is appropriate under the circumstances. Witnessed or Attest by: State of New Jersey 38: County of I CERTIFY that on (m 1?7 2010, T.S. came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that this person: is named in and personally signed this document; and signed sealed and delivered this document as his or her act and deed. Sr NOTARY PUBLIC n0 ?vqy?h 83: State of New Jersey County of I CERTIFY that on Manuela, 2010, T.G. came before me 1 and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that this person: is named in and personally signed this document; and signed sealed and delivered this document as his or her act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC sun/7? (may J, (9a Alt/awn? 4404.; wafg 0/