apmaterialfacts

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

The NJ Supreme Court recognizes Fraudulent Concealment as a separate tort action. Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., et al., 2008 WL 5274869 (N.J. Supreme Court, December 16, 2008).

In a PRECEDENTIAL DECISION, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Catena v. Raytheon Company, et al.,(August 18, 2016), held that the Discovery Rule applied to common law fraud claims (Fraudulent Concealment) as well as fraud claims under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) even if discovered 17 years afterwards and filed 20 years later.

The Catena Court emphasized that the discovery rule "is designed to avoid harsh results that otherwise would flow from mechanical application of a statute of limitations."

A party may not benefit from its own fraudulent conduct. Joe D'Egidio Landscaping, Inc. v. Apicella, 337 N.J. Super. 252, 257 (App. Div. 2001).

Madison Marquette dba Paramount Theater is liable for the actions of the City of AP.

In New Jersey, a concert venue is liable for a promoter's losses because the venue's compliance with the municipality's "security number" demand was voluntary rather than mandatory.

If the municipality lacked the actual legal jurisdiction to dictate specific staffing numbers (e.g., the demand was ultra vires or outside their police powers), the venue cannot use the defense of "Impossibility" or "Force Majeure" to excuse its breach of contract. By yielding to an invalid order without a legal obligation to do so, the venue effectively chose to breach its agreement with the promoter and conceal material facts related to the invalidity of the City's special events permit process that was unenforceable. This action triggers the Catena discovery rule

In the case Platinum Links Ent v Atlantic City Surf Pro Baseball Club 2002. 3rd Circuit United States District Court, Judge the Hon Joseph E. Irenas noted that the City's attempt to block the show was based on a "dislike of the message" and an unfair stereotype of rap fans. The ruling emphasized that Officials could not single out rap music for cancellation while allowing other genres.

The Defendants used the Mutual Aid theory as a denial for the Plaintiff to pay for security. These egregious acts warrant the Catena discovery rule to apply to this claim for common law fraud (fraudulent concealment) and violations of the NJCFA.

The Paramount Theater’s language used in the contract states, necessary permits and authorizations by law. The City’s special events permit is for public property the City owns, operates and controls and was not necessary as per law or applicable for use at the Paramount Theater.

Paragraph 7 of the Paramount Theater’s contract regarding Duties of Licensee states; Licensee shall be responsible for All license and permit fees required under applicable law to stage an event.
Paragraph 8 (i) of the Paramount Theater’s contract regarding Security/Public Safety/Crowd Control states; Licensor’s site Manager will review and determine the appropriate amount of security required and present the security plan to licensee with cost. (This was done on July 22, 2004).
Paragraph 8 (ii) states the Licensor shall determine the minimum number of Police Officers, EMT and Fire Personnel required to be present.
Paragraph 10 (i) of the Paramount Theater’s contract regarding Compliance with Laws (a) states; Licensee shall comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of federal, state, municipal and other government authorities now in force and other proper offices of governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the premises. (d) Licensee agrees prior to the performance of any minor in an event to obtain the necessary certificates and other permits and authorizations by law.

At no time does the Paramount Theaters contract state that the security recommendation will be issued by the Police Dept. beside paying for the City’s commercial proprietary services.

NJLAD; Using "public safety" as a justification to cancel or restrict a specific genre of music (like rap) after the police and venue has already approved security measures for the event is discriminatory. It is a pretext for bias against the artists, promoter(s) and the audience.

Equitable Estoppel - Equitable Tolling

In the Catena appeal, the Appellate Division's decision reinforces the equitable nature of the Discovery Rule in New Jersey. The Court emphasized that the Discovery Rule "is designed to avoid harsh results that otherwise would flow from mechanical application of a statute of limitations."

In the context of FRAUD ESPECIALLY, "the victim's lack of awareness of the fraud is the wrongdoer's very object. The rule thus prevents the Defendant(s) from benefiting from his own deceit."