GDMS Holdings (Eagle Ridge) v. The Fairways at Lake Ridge

OCN-L-000920-21 04/07/2021 4:02:41 PM Pg 1 of 27 Trans ID: LCV2021909558
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. PASQUALE, LLC

Michael P. Pasquale - 048851995
163 Madison Avenue, Suite 220-80
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
(973) 975-4167
Attorneys for Plaintiffs GDMS Holdings LLC,
Augusta Holdings LLC and the Parke at
Lakewood, LLC
:
GDMS HOLDINGS, LLC, : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
AUGUSTA HOLDINGS, LLC and : LAW DIVISION: OCEAN COUNTY
THE PARKE AT LAKEWOOD, LLC, :
: DOCKET NO. OCN-L-
Plaintiffs, :
:
v.
:
: Civil Action
THE FAIRWAYS AT LAKE RIDGE :
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
:
INC., VICTOR D’ANGELO,
: COMPLAINT
FREDERIC a/k/a “ROB” ROBISON,
:
and JUDY BUCKRIDGE,
:
Defendants. :
:
Plaintiffs, GDMS Holdings LLC (“GDMS”), Augusta Holdings LLC (“Augusta”) and the
Parke at Lakewood, LLC (the “Parke”)(GDMS, Augusta and the Parke are collectively referred
to hereinafter as the “GDMS Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, the Law Offices of
Michael P. Pasquale, LLC, as and for their Complaint against defendants the Fairways at Lake
Ridge Homeowners Association (the “Association”), and the above-captioned individual
defendants (the “Individual Defendants”)(the Association and the Individual Defendants are
collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Fairways Defendants”), allege as follows:

PARTIES
1. The GDMS Plaintiffs are New Jersey limited liability companies located in
Lakewood, New Jersey.
2. The Association is a New Jersey corporation and homeowners’ associationlocated
in Lakewood, New Jersey.
3. The Individual Defendants D’Angelo, Robison and Buckridge are certain
directors of the Association, all of whom are residents of Lakewood, New Jersey.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
4. The GDMS Plaintiffs are companies that were formed to purchase and develop
property in Lakewood, New Jersey.
5. In 2017, the GDMS Plaintiffs purchased the property to be developed, which
included an underutilized golf course, constructed in the 1990s, which is commonly known as the Eagle
Ridge Golf Course.
6. The Association and their members, who number over a thousand, reside in homes
on property adjacent to the golf course.
7. Very few (less than five percent) of the Association’s hundreds of homes have a view
of the GDMS Plaintiffs’ golf course.
8. Since 2017, the Fairways Defendants have, in written and spoken word, vowed
to challenge the GDMS Plaintiffs’ residential development at every stage, without regard to merit,
legal or factual basis.
9. Prior to litigation, the Fairways Defendants misled its members regarding the
factual and legal grounds for legal action against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
10. Based on misrepresentations, the Fairways Defendants wrote to its members that
all future opportunities to challenge the development would be taken by the Association in an
2
effort to preserve their “way of life,” their golf course view and perceived property values.
11. The Fairways Defendants thereafter filed a series of lawsuits and other legal actions
against the GDMS Plaintiffs without regard to the merit of the claims asserted therein.
against the GDMS Plaintiffs without regard to the relevance or truth of the factual allegations alleged
therein.
against the GDMS Plaintiffs without regard to the law or whether the GDMS Plaintiffs violated any
law.
against the GDMS Plaintiffs which did not redress any actual grievances.
15. The Fairways Defendants’ meritless filings include: (i) multiple lawsuits against
the GDMS Plaintiffs in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division; (ii) multiple adjudicatory
hearing and other objections with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(“NJDEP”) regarding GDMS property; and (iii) multiple appeals in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division regarding GDMS and its property (the series of meritless lawsuits and
legal actions filed by the Fairways Defendants against the GDMS Plaintiffs are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “Sham Litigation”).
16. The Sham Litigation campaign against the GDMS Plaintiffs also includes dozens
of repetitive and baseless motions, and additional applications with Courts and the NJDEP, which
have been denied and/or rejected by the Courts and the NJDEP.
17. The Fairways Defendants have filed dozens of motions and applications in the
Sham Litigation, which have been denied and/or rejected for having no basis in law and/or fact,
but have been very costly to the GDMS Plaintiffs to defend, oppose or otherwise address.
3
18. Despite being consistently denied and/or rejected by the Courts and the NJDEP,
the frivolous motions and/or applications are repeatedly filed by the Fairways Defendants in the
Sham Litigation.
19. These baseless and repeated filings in the Sham Litigation include in their
contents intentional misrepresentations and false statements regarding the GDMS Plaintiffs, their
business, planned development and their property.
20. The Sham Litigation has been filed with gross disregard to law or facts, and the
Courts and/or the NJDEP have denied and dismissed the vast majority of the Fairways Defendants’
filings.
21. The Sham Litigation is intended to harm the GDMS Plaintiffs by preventing the
development planned by the GDMS Plaintiffs, forcing them to defend and incur high costs associated
with a series of lawsuits and legal challenges and/or delaying the project long enough to derail it.
22. In addition to the Sham Litigation, the Fairways Defendants have committed further
acts intended to harm the GDMS Plaintiffs.
23. During the same time period of this Sham Litigation, Fairways Defendants have,
in spoken and written word, also engaged a disinformation campaign targeting the GDMS
Plaintiffs, in which the Fairways Defendants have made, implied, endorsed and published false,
defamatory and disparaging statements about the GDMS Defendants and their property.
24. The false statements include, but are not limited to, accusations that GDMS
Defendants: committed and/or are committing misfeasance and malfeasance in business;
accusations that they are committing crimes; that they have illegally influenced and corrupted
politicians on the municipal and state levels; that they have committed vast consumer fraud and
fraud; that they are dishonest; that they have made misrepresentations to municipal and state
boards and agencies; that they are in violation of environmental protection laws; that their
4
development will cause flooding and/or other environmental hazards; and that they refuse to
compromise and/or remedy the false claims of flooding or other false claims (the “Disinformation
Campaign”).
25. As a result of the Sham Litigation and Disinformation Campaign, the GDMS
Plaintiffs have been injured and incurred significant damages, continue to be damaged and risk
further significant damages for which monetary relief alone cannot remedy.
26. This action for Abuse of Process, Tortious Interference with Business Contract, Civil
Conspiracy and Defamation was necessitated by these relentless campaigns of sham litigation,
disinformation, defamation and disparagement by the Fairways Defendants against the GDMS
Plaintiffs.
FACT COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
The GDMS Plaintiffs and the Parke at Lakewood
27. The State of New Jersey and its laws have long recognized that there exist “acute
State and local shortages of supply, and high levels of demand, for residential dwellings.”
28. The GDMS Plaintiffs seek to construct hundreds of new, environmentally and family
friendly residential units in a New Jersey county in greater need of additional housingthan most.
29. In doing so, they have sought to comply and have complied with all State laws,
municipal ordinances and legal procedures.
30. Millions of dollars have been invested into the development and construction of their
planned development named “The Parke,” a next-generation neighborhood with hundreds of residential
units, designed inharmony with the existing environment.
31. The Parke will be centered around existing natural preserves and is intended to be a
safe and walkable community for families, with its own dedicated shops, amenities, recreational spaces
and modern comforts.
5
32. When the GDMS Plaintiffs considered purchasing the properties for The Parke,
their legal and other representatives conducted a diligent review of the properties.
33. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ due diligence revealed no deed restriction which
prohibited the planned development or required that the golf course remain as a golf course.
34. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ due diligence revealed no recorded encumbrance which
35. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ due diligence revealed no easement which prohibited the
planned development or required that the golf course remain as a golf course.
36. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ due diligence revealed no agreement, contract or contractual
provision which prohibited the planned development or required that the golf course remain as a golf
course.
37. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ due diligence revealed no ordinance, statute or law which
38. After purchasing the properties in 2017, GDMS applied to the NJDEP for permits
required pursuant to the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (“CAFRA”), N.J.S.A. 13:19-1, et.
seq., the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (“FWPA”), N.J.S.A. 13:9B-1, et. seq., and their
corresponding regulations.
39. On January 11, 2018, the NJDEP issued an approval to GDMS pursuant to CAFRA
and the FWPA (the “2018 CAFRA Permit”).
40. The 2018 CAFRA Permit authorizes the construction of 1,034 residential units, five
community center buildings, a clubhouse facility, retail buildings, and other associated
improvements.
41. The 2018 CAFRA Permit also requires that GDMS record conservation
restrictions related to vegetative cover requirements and critical habitat for protected species as
6
required by CAFRA.
42. On the municipal level, the Parke applied to the Lakewood Township Planning
Board for approval of a General Development Plan (the “GDP"), in accordance with N.J.S.A.
40:55D-45.2, for a residential planned unit development.
43. The Planning Board conducted public hearings on the application on April 2,
2019, April 16, 2019, June 5, 2019, July 23, 2019, September 10, 2019, November 12, 2019 and
November 25, 2019.
44. As memorialized in its Resolution on the application, the Board determined that
Parke had satisfied the applicable legal criteria; that Parke satisfied its burden of proving the
probable feasibility of the project; and that the proposed development satisfied the statutory criteria
for a general development approval.
45. The Planning Board also rejected claims made by the Fairways Defendants atthe
public hearings that development was prohibited because the GDMS Plaintiffs’ property was
actually the “open space” of the Fairways Defendants that must remain a golf course throughout
perpetuity.
The Sham Litigation
46. In or about 2017, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a
request that the NJDEP conduct dispute resolution proceedings with GDMS over its development.
47. On August 29, 2017, the NJDEP formally declined to engage with the Fairways
Defendants in any such proceedings.
48. On January 12, 2018, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed
their first lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Law Division, Docket No.
OCN-L-000071-18, an action in lieu of prerogative writ against GDMS, the Township of the
Lakewood (the “Township”) and others (the “First Lawsuit”).
7
49. The relief sought in the First Lawsuit includes that a court-imposed “constructive
trust” be placed on GDMS property to preserve its golf course as “open space” and forever prohibit
development on it.
50. In response to the First Lawsuit, the GDMS Plaintiffs sent the Fairways
Defendants a frivolous litigation letter pursuant to R. 1:4-8(b) demanding the withdrawal of the
pleading (the “First Frivolous Litigation Letter”) as having no basis in law.
51. On February 15, 2018, the Fairways Defendants filed an adjudicatory hearing
request with the NJDEP, challenging the issuance of the CAFRA permit to GDMS.
52. The NJDEP rejected the Fairways Defendants and denied their request, and stated in
its decision that the Fairways Defendants had no particularized property interest in GDMS property or
its golf course sufficient to challenge the NJDEP’s decisions.
53. The NJDEP’s written decision denying the relief sought by the Fairways Defendants
also provided that:
Courts have consistently held that proximity or any type of

generalized property right shared with other property owners
such as recreational interests, traffic, views, quality of life, and
property values are insufficient to demonstrate a particularized
property right required to establish third party standing for a
hearing. See Spalt v. NJDEP, 237 N.J. Super. 206, 212 (App. Div.
1989), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 140 {1990); In re Amico/Tunnel
Carwash, 371 N.J. Super. 199,211 (App. Div. 2004).
54. The NJDEP also decided that, in regard to other arguments asserted by the Fairways
Defendants, such as baseless “open space” or “common space” arguments, that it deferred to the
Township regarding the interpretation and implementation of zoning laws, as such matters are within
the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Township.
55. On May 24, 2018, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a
second lawsuit against the GDMS Plaintiffs, also filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean
8
County, Law Division, Docket No. OCN-L-001268-18 (the “Second Lawsuit”).
56. The Second Lawsuit asserted claims against the GDMS Plaintiffs of, inter alia,
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), violations of the New Jersey
Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”), Common Law Fraud and
Promissory Estoppel.
57. The Second Lawsuit listed 650 members of the Association as the plaintiffs.
58. Upon information and belief, the nature of the claims and laws alleged to have been
violated by the GDMS Plaintiffs were not explained sufficiently to the members of the Association
prior to it being filed.
59. The Complaint in the Second Lawsuit states that it is a Consumer Fraud case “of a
magnitude not previously seen in our State in terms of the number of plaintiffs and potential damages.”
60. The Second Lawsuit was devoid of any factual basis in support of the many serious
claims contained therein against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
61. The Second Lawsuit included serious misrepresentations regarding the GDMS
Plaintiffs, including the false and incorrect statement that they committed fraud because the
consideration paid for the golf course property was well below the tax assessed value.
62. GDMS Plaintiffs responded to the Second Lawsuit with a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu
of an Answer, in which they warned that the Second Lawsuit was devoid of factual basis, contained
misrepresentation and constituted frivolous litigation in violation of rule and statute.
63. In deciding the Motion to Dismiss on August 22, 2018, the Court ordered the
Fairways Defendants to correct pleading deficiencies and to provide specific allegations to support the
claims asserted against GDMS and Augusta.
64. Between August 22, 2018 and April 2019, plaintiffs in the Second Lawsuit filed four
different, proposed amended pleadings and multiple other papers against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
9
65. The First, Second, Third and Fourth Amended Complaints in the Second Lawsuit
failed to provide any factual basis for fraud or any claims against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
66. Instead of curing the deficiencies noted by the Court, the First, Second, Third and
Fourth Amended Complaints in the Second Lawsuit attempted to add the Association as a plaintiff, add
individual members of the GDMS Plaintiffs as party defendants, and included, along with other
contemporaneous filings, additional, demonstrably false and damaging statements regarding the GDMS
Plaintiffs.
67. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, and dismissed with
prejudice the Second Lawsuit’s fraud, CFA, PREDFDA and Promissory Estoppel claims against the
GDMS Plaintiffs.
68. Upon information and belief, the Fairways Defendants misled the members of the
Association regarding the dismissal of the Second Lawsuit.
69. In dismissing the Second Lawsuit’s aforementioned claims with prejudice, the
Court found, despite the several proposed amended pleadings filed, that the Second Lawsuit failed to
provide a factual basis for its claims against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
70. Between the filing of the Motion to Dismiss on the Second Lawsuit in August of
2018, and the ultimate dismissal on May 22, 2019, the Fairways Defendants compounded and expanded
the Sham Litigation with multiple, additional filings made without regard to theirmerit.
71. On February 4, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed an
Order to Show Cause Application in the First Lawsuit.
72. The Order to Show Cause sought to halt the Township’s Planning Board
consideration of the GDMS Plaintiffs General Development Plan.
73. The Order to Show Cause filed February 4, 2019 in the First Lawsuit was denied
by the Court on March 4, 2019.
10
74. On February 16, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a
Motion to Intervene and to Vacate Final Judgment in a separate, a closed litigation to which it was
never a party, Docket No. OCN-L-000187-18, that had already been resolved and judgment
entered (the “Third Lawsuit”).
75. The February 16, 2019 Motion to Intervene and Vacate Judgment also sought to
consolidate the Third Lawsuit with the First Lawsuit.
76. The Court denied the Motion to Intervene, Vacate Judgment and Consolidate the
First and Third Lawsuits, in all respects.
77. On March 14, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed an appeal
with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-002980-18, challenging the
NJDEP’s decisions regarding the GDMS property (the “First Appeal”).
78. On March 18, 2019, the Fairways Defendants were sent and received a frivolous
litigation letter pursuant to R. 1:4-8(b) and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 from GDMS and Augusta
regarding the claims and misrepresentations asserted in the Second Lawsuit.
79. The March 18, 2019 letter once again warned of the frivolous and false nature of the
accusations made in the Second Lawsuit, and demanded the withdrawal of the amended pleadings
and contemporaneous filings containing false statements about the GDMS Plaintiffs and their property
(the “Second Frivolous Litigation Letter”).
80. The GDMS Plaintiffs never received a response to the Second Frivolous Litigation
Letter.
81. On or about March 18, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed
yet another lawsuit against the GDMS Plaintiffs, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County,
Chancery Division, Docket No. OCN-C-000054-19 (the “Fourth Lawsuit”).
82. The Fourth Lawsuit lacked a factual basis.
11
83. The Fourth Lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment regarding the GDMS Plaintiffs’
future use of an easement, commonly known as Augusta Boulevard.
84. The Fourth Lawsuit was filed despite the undisputed facts that GDMS Plaintiffs has
never used their easement contrary to its terms, and that they do not intend to use it in the future when
they develop the property.
85. GDMS Plaintiffs had expressly stated and assured in writing to the Fairways
Defendants their position that they have never used their easement contrary to its terms, and that they
do not intend to use it in the future when they develop the property.
86. The Fourth Lawsuit filed against the GDMS Plaintiffs did not address any actual
grievance or existing controversy.
87. The Fourth Lawsuit filed against the GDMS Plaintiffs was part of a series of lawsuits
and other legal action filed by the Fairways Defendants against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
88. None of the lawsuit filings or other legal actions by the Fairways Defendants against
the GDMS Plaintiffs address actual, legally cognizable grievances.
89. In response to the Fourth Lawsuit, the GDMS Plaintiffs sent the Fairways
Defendants a frivolous litigation letter pursuant to R. 1:4-8(b) demanding the withdrawal of the
pleading (the “Third Frivolous Litigation Letter”), as there existed no actual grievance, factual or
legal basis for the Fourth Lawsuit.
90. The Fourth Lawsuit was summarily dismissed by the Chancery Division on April 1,
2021.
91. On April 1, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a
second appeal with Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A- 003228-19,
challenging the Court’s decisions: (i) denying their Motion to Vacate Final Judgment in the Third
Lawsuit; (ii) denying the Fairways Defendants’ Motion to Intervene into the Third Lawsuit; and
12
(iii) denying the Fairways Defendants Motion to Consolidate the First Lawsuit with the Third
Lawsuit (the “Second Appeal”).
92. On April 23, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a third
appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A- 003561-18,
challenging the NJDEP decision to issue deny their request for an adjudicatory hearing to
challenge the issuance of the CAFRA permit to GDMS (the “Third Appeal”).
93. Shockingly, even after the CFA, Common Law Fraud and other claims against
the GDMS Plaintiffs in the Second Lawsuit had been dismissed with prejudice, the Fairways
Defendants thereafter filed and/or caused to be filed motions and sworn certifications asserting
that GDMS committed fraud.
94. On September 11, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed
papers in the Second Lawsuit alleging fraud by GDMS.
95. On September 11, 2019, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed
another Motion to Intervene by the Association, this time to intervene into the Second Lawsuit,
supported by a sworn Certification from defendant D’Angelo, claiming the Motion to Intervene
needed to be granted to remedy the fraud committed by GDMS.
96. The GDMS Plaintiffs demanded the withdrawal of the Motion to Intervene and
the D’Angelo Certification containing false, and now adjudged to be false, accusations against
GDMS.
97. The Motion to Intervene filed on September 11, 2019 in the Second Lawsuit was
thereafter withdrawn.
98. On January 29, 2020, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed yet
another Motion to Intervene on behalf of the Association, and to file a Fifth Amended Complaint,
in the Second Lawsuit.
13
99. Once again, the January 29, 2020 Motion to Intervene was supported by a sworn
Certification of D’Angelo, falsely claiming again that GDMS committed fraud, the second court
filing alleging fraud against GDMS after the Court had already dismissed the fraud claims against
GDMS with prejudice.
100. Accordingly, given the history in the Second Lawsuit of the July 2018 and
September 2019 frivolous litigation warnings, and the unheeded Second Frivolous Litigation
Letter, on February 4, 2020, the GDMS Plaintiffs wrote another frivolous litigation letter,
demanding the withdrawal of the Motion to Intervene and Certification containing false statements
within twenty-eight days pursuant to R. 1:4- 8(b) and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.l (the “Fourth Frivolous
Litigation Letter”).
101. The repeated filing of frivolous papers containing false statements against
GDMS, which had been adjudged to be false statements, were not withdrawn pursuant to theterms
and demands of the Fourth Frivolous Litigation Letter and, on April 3, 2020, the GDMS Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Sanctions and Reimbursement of Attorney Fees and Costs pursuant to R. 1:4-
8(b) and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.l.
102. On April 17, 2020, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed
another lawsuit against the GDMS Plaintiffs, Docket No. OCN-L-1000-20, another action in
lieu of prerogative writ, seeking, inter alia, to challenge the GDP approval and assert civil
rights claims over property interests (the “Fifth Lawsuit”).
103. On February 2, 2021, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be fileda
Motion to Consolidate the Fifth Lawsuit with the First Lawsuit.
104. The Court denied the February 2, 2021 Motion to Consolidate.
105. On February 3, 2021, the Fairways Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed a
Motion to permit the 650 individual plaintiffs in the Second Lawsuit to Intervene into the Fifth
14
Lawsuit.
106. The Court denied the February 3, 2021 Motion to Intervene.
107. The Fairways Defendants have filed and/or caused to be filed a series of lawsuits,
appeals and other legal actions without regard to the merit of the filings, i.e., the Sham Litigation.
108. The Fairways Defendants seek through their Sham Litigation to restrain tradeand
injure the GDMS Plaintiffs.
109. The Fairways Defendants seek through their Sham Litigation to prevent the GDMS
Plaintiffs from their development of the golf course and to destroy their credibility, business reputation
and good name in the marketplace.
The Disinformation Campaign
110. Concurrent with the Sham Litigation, the Fairways Defendants also engaged in the
Disinformation Campaign.
111. The Fairways Defendants engaged in the Disinformation Campaign in order to
damage the good name and reputation of the GDMS Plaintiffs.
112. The Fairways Defendants engaged in the Disinformation Campaign in order to
convince members of the defendant Association to begin the Sham Litigation, and to convince them to
maintain and expand the Sham Litigation, despite the lack of merit and high percentage of losses.
113. The Disinformation Campaign included the Fairways Defendants writing and
publishing to over a thousand of its members, before the institution of the Sham Litigation, of their
intention to challenge the GDMS Plaintiffs every step of the development process, without regard to
the merit of their challenges.
114. The Fairways Defendants wrote to the over one thousand members of the Association
that the actions of GDMS Plaintiffs were illegal and would hurt the members’ property values.
115. In fact, since the announcement by the GDMS Plaintiffs of their planned
15
development, sales prices of member homes have risen dramatically, by up to 25% over the course of
the twelve months leading up to the present date as of this filing.
116. In or about March 2018, the Fairways Defendants launched a letter writing campaign
to the NJDEP to protest the GDMS development, and the Fairways Defendantscreated and distributed
multiple “form letters” for its members to send to the NJDEP.
117. The form letters contained false statements against the GDMS Plaintiffs,
including claims of misfeasance in business, illegal influence over state and local governmental
officials and other falsehoods.
118. In or about January 2019, the media outlet NJ.com and columnist Mark DiIonno
published a column quoting the Fairways Defendants as stating that the NJDEP and GDMS
violated laws and foiled due process.
119. In or about February 2019, media platform “Ocean County Politics” published an
article stating that Fairways Defendants were trying to stop widespread corruption of the Township by
the GDMS Plaintiffs.
120. In or about April 2019, shortly before the filing of the First Appeal, the Second
Appeal and the Third Appeal, the Fairways Defendants again vowed in writing that that they
will appeal all future applications denied, despite not yet knowing the grounds for the future
denials.
121. In or about May 2019, the Fairways Defendants falsely wrote and/or caused to
be written, provided to and published by the social media outlet “Take Back Lakewood”, that
GDMS made ominous threats and committed serious, violent crimes.
122. In June of 2019, after the dismissal with prejudice of the fraud, CFA and other claims
against the GDMS Plaintiffs, the Fairways Defendants concealed the nature of the loss, and made
misrepresentations in writing about the results of its litigation against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
16
123. The Fairways Defendants “pulled the wool over the eyes” of their own members and
wrote to them in June 2019 that the dismissal of the claims against the GDMS Plaintiffs with prejudice
was actually “very favorable” to them, despite having been permanently dismissed.
124. The Fairways Defendants misled the members of the Association over the true
litigation results so that they could continue the Sham Litigation for improper purposes.
125. The Fairways Defendants misled the members of the Association over settlement
negotiations and mediation of the Sham Litigation so that they could continue the Sham Litigation for
improper purposes.
126. The Fairways Defendants misled the members of the Association by, inter alia,
reporting false claims to its members that the development would cause flooding or other environmental
hazards and that settlement of litigation could not be achieved until these false and fictional issues were
resolved.
127. Upon information and belief, the Fairways Defendants, in an effort to maintain the
Sham Litigation and garner support for its continued prosecution, have not reported to their members
the litigation losses, denials, rejections, dismissals with prejudice, the four frivolous litigations letters
or motion for sanctions seeking the reimbursement of attorney fees from the Association, its members
and attorneys, jointly and severally.
128. The Fairways Defendants’ lack of good faith and improper motives are evidenced by
further acts including, but not limited to, their primary representative’s offer to “go away to North
Carolina” if the GDMS Plaintiffs purchased his unit at Fairways for $150,000.00 above its market
value.
FIRST COUNT
(Abuse of Process)
129. The GDMS Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporate by reference the
allegations in paragraphs 1-128 of this Complaint as if fully stated herein.
17
130. Without regard to the merit of its applications, the Fairways Defendants filed
and/or causing to be filed to date: the First Lawsuit, the Second Lawsuit, the Third Lawsuit, the
Fourth Lawsuit and the Fifth Lawsuit; as well as the First Appeal, the Second Appeal and the Third
Appeal.
131. Within those lawsuits, Defendant Fairways filed multiple, meritless applications
and motions. These frivolous applications to the courts occasioned significant delays, were costly
to defend and/or otherwise address, and were uniformly disposed of by the Courts with multiple
and consistent denials to and losses by the Fairways Defendants.
132. Without regard to the merits of their applications, the Fairways Defendants have
filed objections and appeals of all NJDEP decisions regarding the development bythe GDMS
Plaintiffs.
133. Without regard to the merit of their actions, the Fairways Defendants have objected
to and taken testimony at every public hearing regarding the development.
134. The Fairways Defendants engaged in a campaign of Sham Litigation for the
improper purpose of impeding and delaying the GDMS Plaintiffs' ability to proceed with the
development of the Parke at Lakewood.
135. The Sham Litigation against the GDMS Plaintiffs lacks a basis in fact and/or law,
and repeatedly relies upon false statements about the GDMS Plaintiffs.
136. The Sham Litigation was intended to prevent and/or delay the development bythe
GDMS Plaintiffs.
137. The Fairways Defendants have repeatedly attempted to use the delay caused by
the Sham Litigation as a bargaining chip to coerce the GDMS Plaintiffs to preservethe
Fairways Defendants’ golf course view.
18
138. The Fairways Defendants have taken further acts in their misuse and abuse of process
including, but not limited to, concealing the results of theSham Litigation from their membership in
order to continue the improper prosecution of the Sham Litigation.
139. The improper use of the Sham Litigation, to accomplish purposes for which our
judiciary and Rules of Court were not designed, constitutes an abuse and/or misuse of process.
140. As a result of the improper use of the Sham Litigation by the Fairways
Defendants, the GDMS Plaintiffs have incurred, and continue to incur, damages.
141. The conduct of the Fairways Defendants is willful, wanton, malicious,and
outrageous, intended to harm the GDMS Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the GDMS Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Fairways Defendants,
jointly and severally, for:
(a) compensatory damages, with the amount to be determined at trial, together with
interest thereon;
(b) punitive damages;
(c) declaratory judgment;
(d) an award of attorney fees and costs; and
(e) for such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
SECOND COUNT
(Tortious Interference with Business Contract
and Prospective Economic Advantage)
143. At all times material hereto, the GDMS Plaintiffs intended to develop the
property as a residential construction with a mix of retail uses and services contained therein.
144. The GDMS Plaintiffs’ proposed development competes with other residential
19
development in the Township and Ocean County.
145. The Sham Litigation and Disinformation Campaign conducted by the Fairways
Defendants against the GDMS Defendants delays the GDMS Plaintiffs’ ability to proceed with
the development.
146. The Sham Litigation and Disinformation Campaign conducted by the Fairways
Defendants against the GDMS Defendants delays and interferes with the ability of the GDMS
Plaintiffs to enter into leases with prospective tenants for space in the proposed complex; interferes
with their prospective business relations and undermines the credibility of the GDMS Plaintiffs in
the marketplace as the developer of the property.
147. The actions of the Fairways Defendants constitute tortious interference with
the GDMS Plaintiffs' contract to purchase the golf course, construct and developthe
property and their prospective contracts related thereto.
148. The Fairways Defendants’ conduct was not privileged or justified.
149. The GDMS Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of economic advantage in
purchasing its property and the golf course.
150. The Fairways Defendants intentionally and maliciously interfered with that
expectation.
151. By so interfering, the Fairways Defendants have harmed and seek to harmPlaintiff
further.
152. As a result of the improper actions of the Fairways Defendants, the GDMS
Plaintiffs have incurred damages, and will continue to incur damages in an amount yet to be
determined.
153. The conduct of the Fairways Defendants was willful, wanton, malicious, and
20
interest thereon;
(c) an award of attorney fees and costs; and
(d) for such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
THIRD COUNT
(Civil Conspiracy)
155. As set forth above, Fairways Defendants engaged in various conduct to effectuate
their intended purposes of, inter alia, (i) impeding and delaying the GDMS Plaintiffs’ ability to
proceed with the development of the Parke at Lakewood; (ii) attempting to coerce the GDMS
Plaintiffs to preserve their golf course because of the threat of delay caused by and costs of the
Sham Litigation; (iii) furthering the Fairways Defendants’ plan to prevent additional and
superior residential units from entering the marketplace; and/or (iv) obtaining monetary and/or
other compensation.
156. The Fairways Defendants conspired in the creation, prosecution and maintenance
of the Sham Litigation.
157. The Fairways Defendants conspired in the creation and continued Disinformation
Campaign against the GDMS Defendants, their good name and character, their planned
development and property.
158. Upon information and belief, the members of the Association have been billed
and paid in excess of $1,000,000.00 in attorney and other professional fees and costs in order to
21
fund the Sham Litigation to date.
159. In order to institute the Sham Litigation, the Fairways Defendants misled the
members of the Association over grounds for such a lawsuit, and instituted such actions without vote
or Association member consent.
160. In order maintain the Sham Litigation and justify professional fees expended, the
Fairways Defendants conspired to conceal the true results and losses in the Sham Litigation from the
members of the Association they have a duty to represent.
161. The Fairways Defendants conspired to conceal the losses in the Sham Litigation in
order to maintain and personally profit from the continued Sham Litigation.
162. The Fairways Defendants have reported and advised the members of the Association
that a result in the Sham Litigation was “very favorable,” when in fact the primary claims of violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Common Law Fraud, Promissory Estoppel and violations of
the New Jersey Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act had all been permanently
dismissed with prejudice.
163. The Fairways Defendants conspired to maintain and delay the Sham Litigation by
not reporting to the members that several, frivolous litigation letters were sent to the Association in
response to the Sham Litigation.
not reporting to the members of the Association that there were Motions for Sanctions and
Reimbursement of Counsel Fees filed against the Association, their attorneys and individual members
who filed a lawsuit against the GDMS Plaintiffs.
falsely reporting to their members that fictional flooding and environmental hazards prevented
settlement of the litigation, and/or that GDMS remedying the false hazards was required to settle.
22
166. The Fairways Defendants have acted with malice.
167. The GDMS Plaintiffs have been harmed by the conduct of the Fairways
Defendants.
168. The GDMS Plaintiffs have suffered monetary damages as a result of the
conduct of the Fairways Defendants, and will suffer additional, substantial harm arising from
the Fairways Defendants’ wrongful conduct or future wrongful conduct.
169. The GDMS Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their good name, reputation
and character as a result of the conduct of the Fairways Defendants, and will suffer additional,
substantial harm arising from Fairways Defendants’ wrongful conduct or future wrongful
conduct.
170. The Fairways Defendants acted with the express intent to injure the GDMS
Plaintiffs by improperly and unlawfully interfering with the GDMS Plaintiffs’ right to develop
its own property.
171. As a result of the improper actions of the Fairways Defendants, the GDMS
Plaintiffs have incurred damages, and will continue to incur damages in an amount yet to be
determined.
172. The conduct of the Fairways Defendants was willful, wanton, malicious, and
interest thereon;
(c) an award of attorney fees and costs; and
23
(d) for such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
FOURTH COUNT
(Defamation and Disparagement)
173. The GDMS Plaintiffs repeat, reallege, and incorporates by reference the allegations
in paragraphs 1-172 of this Complaint as if fully stated herein.
174. Beginning in 2017, and continuing through the present day, the Fairways Defendants
published and/or republished false statements and implications about the GDMS Plaintiffs during news
interviews, in online reports sent directly to thousands of people in the local community, and on social
media.
175. False implications were intentionally made by the Fairways Defendants through their
false statements, by other statements that were misleading due to material omissions, and bypresenting
misleading juxtapositions of statements.
176. The false statements and implications made by the Fairways Defendants include,
but are not limited to:
(a) false accusations that GDMS Defendants committed and/or are

committing misfeasance and malfeasance in business;
(b) false accusations that GDMS Defendants have committed crimes;
(c) false accusations that GDMS Defendants have illegally influenced and
corrupted politicians on the municipal and state levels;
(d) false accusations that GDMS Defendants have committed vast

consumer fraud and fraud;
(e) false accusations that GDMS Defendants are dishonest;
(f) false accusations that GDMS Defendants have made

misrepresentations to municipal and state boards and agencies; and
(g) false accusations that GDMS Defendants are in violation of

environmental protection laws and that their development will cause
flooding.
24
177. The false statements and implications constitute and were made through the
Disinformation Campaign.
178. The false statements and implications made through the Disinformation Campaign
were intended by the Fairways Defendants to garner the support of the members of the Association for
the Sham Litigation.
179. The false statements and implications were made through the Disinformation
Campaign and intended to prevent the development of GDMS property.
Campaign and intended to delay the development of GDMS property.
Campaign and intended to downplay litigation losses to Association members so that the Sham
Litigation could continue to serve the improper interests and motives of the Fairways Defendants.
182. The statements and implications herein described were published without privilege
or legal authorization.
183. The false statements and implications were broadcast, published and republished to
third parties. The broadcasts, publications and republications with these false statements and
implications were widely disseminated by the Fairways Defendants.
184. These false statements and implications were defamatory because they exposed the
GDMS Plaintiffs to public hate, contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, and because they induced an evil
and unsavory opinion of the GDMS Plaintiffs and their business into the minds of a substantial number
of the community.
185. The false statements and implications were defamatory per se since they charged the
GDMS Plaintiffs with business misfeasance, business malfeasance, serious crimes and were of a nature
25
tending to injure the GDMS Plaintiffs in their trade, business, and profession.
186. Each of the Fairways Defendants acted with fault and/or with actual malice.
187. Each knew these defamatory statements and implications were false, or recklessly
disregardedthe truth or falsity of the statements and implications, when they broadcast, published, and
republished them.
188. The Fairways Defendants acted deliberately and malicious to injure the GDMS
Plaintiffs out of hatred, ill-will or spite, and/or for improper motives.
(e) compensatory damages, with the amount to be determined at trial, together with
interest thereon;
(f) punitive damages;
(g) an award of attorney fees and costs; and
(h) for such other and further relief which the Court deems just and proper.
DESIGNATION OF TRIALCOUNSEL
Michael P. Pasquale, Esq. is hereby designated as trial counsel pursuant to R. 4:25-2, et seq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: /s/ Michael P. Pasquale

MICHAEL P. PASQUALE
Dated: April 7, 2021
26
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1
I hereby certify that the within matter is not the subject of another action pending in any court
or of a pending arbitration or proceeding, nor is any other action or proceeding presently contemplated,
other than the First Lawsuit, Second Lawsuit, Third Lawsuit, Fourth Lawsuit, Fifth Lawsuit, the
First Appeal, Second Appeal and Third Appeal, each of which has been herein defined and described
in this Complaint. I further certify that I know of no other party who presently should be joined in this
action pursuant to R. 4:28 or who is subject to joinder pursuant to R. 4:29-1 (b) because of potential
liability to any party on the basis of the same facts.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL P. PASQUALE
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 1:38-7(c)
I hereby certify that confidential personal identifies have been redacted from documents
now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in
accordance with R. 1:38-7(b).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MICHAEL P. PASQUALE
27
Civil Case Information Statement

Case Details: OCEAN | Civil Part Docket# L-000920-21
Case Caption: GDMS HOLDINGS LLC VS THE Case Type: TORT-OTHER

FAIRWAYS AT LAKE RIDG Document Type: Complaint
Case Initiation Date: 04/07/2021 Jury Demand: NONE
Attorney Name: MICHAEL P PASQUALE Is this a professional malpractice case? NO
Firm Name: MICHAEL P. PASQUALE, LLC Related cases pending: YES
Address: 163 MADISON AVE STE 220-80 If yes, list docket numbers: OCN-L-000071-18 OCN-L-001268-18
MORRISTOWN NJ 07960 Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same
Phone: 9739754167 transaction or occurrence)? NO
Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : GDMS Holdings LLC
Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: GDMS Holdings LLC ? NO
(if known): Unknown

Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: Augusta Holdings LLC ? NO
Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: The Parke at Lakewood, LLC
? NO
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE

CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION
Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO

If yes, is that relationship:
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? YES
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:
Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO

If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:
Will an interpreter be needed? NO

If yes, for what language:
Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO
I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
04/07/2021 /s/ MICHAEL P PASQUALE

Dated Signed

GDMS Holdings (Eagle Ridge) v. The Fairways at Lake Ridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GDMS Holdings (Eagle Ridge) v. The Fairways at Lake Ridge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GDMS Holdings (Eagle Ridge) v. The Fairways at Lake Ridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCN-L-000920-21 04/07/2021 4:02:41 PM Pg 1 of 27 Trans ID: LCV2021909558

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. PASQUALE, LLC

Ridge Homeowners Association (the “Association”), and the above-captioned individual

collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Fairways Defendants”), allege as follows:

Lakewood, New Jersey.

2. The Association is a New Jersey corporation and homeowners’ associationlocated

in Lakewood, New Jersey.

3. The Individual Defendants D’Angelo, Robison and Buckridge are certain

NATURE OF THE ACTION

property in Lakewood, New Jersey.

5. In 2017, the GDMS Plaintiffs purchased the property to be developed, which

Ridge Golf Course.

on property adjacent to the golf course.

of the GDMS Plaintiffs’ golf course.

legal or factual basis.

collectively referred to as the “Sham Litigation”).

business, planned development and their property.

acts intended to harm the GDMS Plaintiffs.

Defendants: committed and/or are committing misfeasance and malfeasance in business;

FACT COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

The GDMS Plaintiffs and the Parke at Lakewood

municipal ordinances and legal procedures.

units, designed inharmony with the existing environment.

and modern comforts.

and the FWPA (the “2018 CAFRA Permit”).

40:55D-45.2, for a residential planned unit development.

November 25, 2019.

for a general development approval.

The Sham Litigation

Defendants in any such proceedings.

Lakewood (the “Township”) and others (the “First Lawsuit”).

pleading (the “First Frivolous Litigation Letter”) as having no basis in law.

its golf course sufficient to challenge the NJDEP’s decisions.

also provided that:

Courts have consistently held that proximity or any type of

the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Township.

County, Law Division, Docket No. OCN-L-001268-18 (the “Second Lawsuit”).

prior to it being filed.

claims contained therein against the GDMS Plaintiffs.

misrepresentation and constituted frivolous litigation in violation of rule and statute.

claims asserted against GDMS and Augusta.

Association regarding the dismissal of the Second Lawsuit.

Order to Show Cause Application in the First Lawsuit.

consideration of the GDMS Plaintiffs General Development Plan.

by the Court on March 4, 2019.

entered (the “Third Lawsuit”).

consolidate the Third Lawsuit with the First Lawsuit.

First and Third Lawsuits, in all respects.

NJDEP’s decisions regarding the GDMS property (the “First Appeal”).

regarding the claims and misrepresentations asserted in the Second Lawsuit.

(the “Second Frivolous Litigation Letter”).

Chancery Division, Docket No. OCN-C-000054-19 (the “Fourth Lawsuit”).

82. The Fourth Lawsuit lacked a factual basis.

future use of an easement, commonly known as Augusta Boulevard.

they develop the property.

grievance or existing controversy.

the GDMS Plaintiffs address actual, legally cognizable grievances.

legal basis for the Fourth Lawsuit.