CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1aogfe212 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE DISTRJCT OF NEW JERSEY

TRAFFORD BOISSELLE, both individually and on behalf of a class of : others similarly situated, .

Plaintiffs,

V.

THE COUNTY OF MERCER;

MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF SHERIFF, KEVIN C. LARKIN,

both individually and in his official

capacity as Sheriff of the County of Mercer

MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ,

both individually and in his official capacity :

as Undersheriff of the County of Mercer,

DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI, both individually

and in his official capacity as Undersheriff

of the County of Mercer, MICHAEL B.

GERALD, both individually and in his

official capacity as Undersheriff of the

County of Mercer, JOHN A. KEMLER

both individually and in his official capacity :

as Chief Sheriffs Officer of the County

of Mercer, and JOHN J. MCEWAN, both

individually and in his official capacity as

Chief Warrant Officer of the County of

Mercer, MERCER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

.,

SHIRLEY TYLER, both individually

and in her official capacity as Warden of the:

Department of Corrections of Mercer

County, ROY HENDRJCK, both

Individually and in his official capacity as

Deputy Warden of the Department of

Corrections of Mercer County

Defendants.

Civil Action Number CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRJAL DEMANDED

I

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP2aogfe222 of 22
INTRODUCTION This is a class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants of rights secured to the Plaintiff and proposed Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States of America. For at least the past 2 years, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and Mercer County Department of Corrections have had a policy of strip-searching all individuals who enter the Mercer County Jail and are placed in jail clothing, regardless of the crime upon which they are charged. Upon information and belief, this policy is, in part, derived from the written procedures of the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and Mercer County Department of Corrections, and was promulgated by senior Department officials; specifically, Defendants Kevin C. Larkin, Michael D. Gerasimowicz, Dennis J. Tobolski, Michael B. Gerald, John A. Kemler, John J. McEwan, Shirley Tyler and Roy Hendrick It has been well established in this judicial circuit for many years that individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor violations cannot be strip-s.earched absent particularized suspicion that they possess weapons or contraband. In short, the policy of Mercer County and the Mercer County Sheriffs Department to force those charged with minor crimes to undergo the indignities of a strip search upon entry into the Mercer County Jail is clearly illegal. Trafford Boisselle bring this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of a class of thousands of others who were strip searched after being charged with petty crimes, to vindicate the clear and unnecessary violation of their civil rights and those of the class members they propose to represent. Plaintiff was charged with misdemeanor and violation offenses, and subject to a strip search, in violation of his right against
2

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP3aogfe232 of 22
unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for himself and each member of the proposed class, a declaration that the Sheriffs Department's and Correction's Department policies are unconstitutional, and an injunction precluding Mercer County, Mercer County Corrections and the Mercer County Sheriffs Department from continuing to violate the rights of those placed into their custody. With this as a background, Plaintiff Trafford Boisselle complains as follows:
JURISDICTION I. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341 & 1343 because it is filed to obtain compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the deprivation, under color of state law, of the rights of citizens of the United States secured by the Constitution and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the Constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims and those of proposed class members occurred in this judicial district.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Trafford Boisselle ("Boiselle") is 42 years old and resides in Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. Mr. Boisselle was arrested on or about January 2 2006 and placed in the Mercer County Correctional Facility on driving offenses and a disorderly persons offense which resulted in open municipal detainers.
3

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP4aogfe242 of 22
4. Defendant County of Mercer (the "County") is a county governmental entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Sheriffs Department and Department of Corrections, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Mercer County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriff's Department personnel, including those working in the Mercer County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Mercer County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriff's Department and Department of Corrections personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and Jaws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
5. The Mercer County Sheriff's Department (the "Sheriffs Department") is a County Sheriffs Department organized and existing under the Jaws of the State of New Jersey. Although not a legal entity for the purposes of litigation, the Department is listed as a party for the purposes of identification. At all times relevant hereto, the Sheriffs Department was responsible for operating, organizing, overseeing and administering the Mercer County Jail ("MCJ"). At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriff's Department, together with the County of Mercer, was responsible for the polices, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the MCJ, and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the MCJ. In addition, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Sheriffs Department, together with the County of . Mercer, was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Mercer County Jail, and for
4

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP5aogfe252 of 22
ensunng that Sheriffs Department personnel employed in the MCJ obeyed the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State ofNew Jersey.
6. Defendant Mercer County Correctional Facility Department of Corrections (the "Jail" or "MCCF") is a county governmental organization and exists under the laws of the State of New Jersey. At all times relevant hereto, the County, acting through its Wardem and MCCF, was responsible for the policies, practices, supervision, implementation and conduct of all matters pertaining to the Mercer County Jail and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision and conduct of all Sheriffs Department personnel, including those working in the Mercer County Jail. In addition, at all relevant times, the County was responsible for enforcing the rules of the Mercer County Jail, and for ensuring that Sheriffs Department and MCCF personnel employed in the Jail obey the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of New Jersey.
7. Defendant Kevin C. Larkin ("Sheriff Larkin") is the duly elected Sheriff of Mercer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Sheriff Larkin's principal place of business is Mercer County Court House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Sheriff Larkin is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Michael D. Gerasimowicz ("Undersheriff Gerasimowicz") is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Mercer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. UndersheriffGerasimowicz's principal place of business is the Mercer County Court House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Undersheriff
5

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP6aogfe262 of 22
Gerasimowicz is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Dennis J. Tobolski ("Undersheriff Tobolski") is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Mercer County, and; as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Tobolski's principal place of business is the Mercer County Court House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Undersheriff Tobolski is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
I 0. Defendant Michael B. Gerald ("Undersheriff Gerald") is a duly appointed Undersheriff of Mercer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Undersheriff Gerald's principal place of business is the Mercer County Court House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Undersheriff Gerald is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
11. Defendant John A. Kemler,· ("Officer Kemler") is the duly appointed Chief Sheriff's Officer of Mercer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Officer Kemler's principal place of business is the Mercer County Court House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Officer Kemler is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Defendant John J. McEwan, ("Officer McEwan") is the duly appointed Chief Warrant Officer of Mercer County, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCJ exercises custodial or other control. Officer McEwan's principal place of business is the Mercer County Court
6

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP7aogfe272 of 22
House 175 South Broad Street Trenton, NJ 08650. Officer McEwan is made a Defendant in this action in both his individual and official capacities.
13. Defendant Shirley Tyler ("Warden Tyler") is the duly appointed Warden of the Mercer County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Warden Tyler's principal place of business is the Mercer County Jail, Rt. 29 River Road, Lambertville, NJ, 08530. Warden Tyler is made a ·Defendant in this action in both her individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Roy Hendrick ("Deputy Warden Hendrick") is the duly appointed Deputy Warden of the Mercer County Department of Corrections, and, as such, is a policy maker with respect to the treatment of pre-trial and other detainees over which the MCCF exercises custodial or other control. Deputy Warden Hendrick's principal place of business is the Mercer County Jail, Rt. 29 River Road, Lambertville, NJ, 08530. Deputy Warden Hendrick is made a Defendant in this action in both her individual and official capacities.
I 5. Collectively, Sheriff Larkin, Undersheriff Gerasimowicz, Undersheriff Tobolski, Undersheriff Gerald, Officer Kemler, Officer McEwan, Warden Tyler and Deputy Warden Hendrick will be referred to as the "Policy Making Defendants."
7

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP8aogfe282 of 22
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
16. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(I), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
individuals who were charged with misdemeanors (disorderly persons offenses) or minor
crimes and were strip searched upon their entry into the Mercer County Jail.
17. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as follows:
All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail after being charged with non indictable offenses such as misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments, warrants for child support or other minor crimes and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the Mercer County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Mercer CoUI1ty Sheriffs Department and the County of Mercer. The class period commences on May 5, 2004 and extends to the date on which the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and/or the County of Mercer are enjoined from, or otherwise cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees.
18. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action
under Federal law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy
requirements for maintaining a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
19. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable.
Upon information and belief, there are hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors,
traffic warrants child support and other violations which do not support probable cause to
search, who are placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail every month - all of
whom are members of the proposed class. Upon information and belief, the size of the
proposed class totals at least 5,000 individuals, some of whom have had their civil rights
violated on multiple occasions.
8

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP9aogfe292 of 22
20. Upon information and belief, joinder of all of these individuals is impracticable because of the large number of class members and the fact that class members are likely dispersed over a large geographical area, with some members presently residing outside of Mercer County and this Judicial District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, many members of the class are low-income persons, may not speak English, and likely would have great difficulty in pursuing their rights individually.
21. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, in that they all had their right to be free from unreasonable searches violated by Defendants' conducting strip searches absent particularized suspicion. All members of the class were charged with misdemeanors or violations when placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail, and all were illegally strip searched in violation of the established law in this judicial circuit.
22. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. Plaintiff and all members of the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' ·course of conduct. The harms suffered by the Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the class members.
23. The representative Plaintiff has the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class.
24. Plaintiff has retained counsel who have substantial experience and success in the prosecution of class action and civil rights litigation. The named Plaintiff is being represented by William Riback; Jonathan Cuneo and Charles LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm, PLLC; Elmer Robert
9

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a0goef 1202 of 22
Keach, III; and Gary E. Mason, Alexander E. Barnett and Nicholas, Migliaccio of The Mason Law Firm, PLLC.
25. William Riback is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has successfully litigated class actions in both state and federal courts in a number of jurisdictions across the country.
26. Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, have extensive experience in state and federal trial and appellate courts, before law enforcement authorities and in proceedings before the United States Congress. Cuneo and LaDuca have successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including cases involving securities fraud, antitrust violations, consumer protection and products liability in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In addition to this experience, Cuneo and LaDuca are co-counsel in several strip-search class actions, with Mr. Keach, one of which was recently certified in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against the County of Schenectady and other related Defendants.
27. Seth Lesser and Fran Rudich of the Locks Law Firm with offices in Cherry Hill and New York City, are both experienced civil rights and class action attorneys. Mr. Lesser is one of this country's premier class action attorneys having successfully litigated civil rights, consumer protection and products liability class actions against Fortune 500 companies in courts across the country, including both New Jersey state and federal courts. Ms. Rudich has litigated scores of individual and class action civil rights cases against a number of Defendants in over ten jurisdictions throughout the United States.
28. Mr. Keach is an experienced civil rights and class action attorney who has litigated a wide variety of civil rights actions, and has litigated class action lawsuits in state and federal courts in five states. Mr. Keach has successfully litigated strip search
10

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a1goef 1212 of 22
cases against the Troy City Police Department and the Schenectady School District, and was lead counsel in the Rensselaer County Jail strip search class action which recently settled.
29. Gary E. Mason is one of this country's premier class action attorneys, with offices in Washington, DC. Mr. Mason has successfully litigated class actions against Fortune 500 companies in both state and federal court in over a dozen jurisdictions, including gaining a settlement for a class of purchasers of defective polybutylene pipe of $ 950 million dollars. Mr. Mason has served as lead or co-counsel in numerous high profile class actions, including In Re The Exxon Valdez, In Re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation and In Re Synthetic Stucco (EIFS) Product Liability Litigation.
30. In short, Plaintiff's counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against Mercer County, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department, Department of Corrections and the Policy Making Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiff knows of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class.
31. This action, in part, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. As such, the Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that all class members were subject to the same policy requiring the illegal strip searches of individuals charged with misdemeanor or minor crimes and placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail. In short, the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Gloucester County Corrections Officers acted on grounds generally applicable to all class members.
32. In addition to certification under Rule 23(b)(2), and m the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
11

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a2goef 1222 of 22
33. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the Class. These common questions of law and fact include, without limitation, the common and predominate question of whether the Defendants' written and/or de facto policy of strip searching all individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor crimes and committed to the Mercer County Jail is a violation of.the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and whether such a written and/or de facto policy existed during the class period.
34. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all of the individual members of the class is impracticable given the large number of class members and the fact that they are dispersed over a large geographical area. Furthermore, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them. The cost to the federal court· system of adjudicating thousands of individual cases would be enormous. Individualized litigation would also magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action in this District presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class.
35. Upon information and belief, there are no other actions pending to address the Defendants' flagrant violation of the civil rights of thousands of individuals, even though the Defendants have maintained their illegal strip search regimen for at least the past 2 years.
12

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a3goef 1232 of 22
36. In the alternative to certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs also seek partial certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4).
FACTS Facts Applicable to the Class Generally 37. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits state officials, such as the Policy Making Defendants in· this action and the Corrections Officers they supervise, from performing strip searches of arrestees who have been charged with misdemeanors (disorderly persons offenses) other minor crimes, traffic offenses, warrants for child support, or other non-indictable offenses, unless the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or contraband. 38. Upon information and belief, the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of strip searching all individuals who enter the custody of the Mercer County Jail and are placed into jail clothing, regardless of the nature of their charged crime and without the presence of reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was concealing a weapon or contraband. 39. Upon information and belief, the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and the Policy Making Defendants have instituted a written and/or de facto policy, custom or practice of conducting visual body cavity searches (visual inspection of the vaginal and rectal cavities) on all individuals who enter the custody of the Mercer County Jail, regardless of the individual characteristics or the nature of their charged crime. For purposes of this Complaint, strip and visual cavity searches are collectively referred to as "strip searches."
13

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a4goef 1242 of 22
40. The County of Mercer, the Mercer County Correctional Facility and the Mercer County Sheriff's Department, and the Policy Making Defendants know that they may not institute, enforce or permit enforcement of a policy or practice of conducting strip searches without particularized, reasonable suspicion. Upon information and belief, the Mercer County's written policy was based on the policy promulgated by the Mercer County Sheriff's Department or the Correctionallnstitution.
4!. The Defendants' written and/or de facto policy, practice and custom mandating wholesale strip searches of all misdemeanor and violation arrestees has been promulgated, effectuated and/or enforced in bad faith and contrary to clearly established law.
42. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search may only emanate from the particular circumstances antecedent to the search, such as the nature of the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestees, and/or the circumstances of the arrest.
43. Upon information and belief, the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Sheriff's Department Mercer County Department of Corrections and Policy Making Defendants have promulgated, implemented, enforced, and/or failed to rectify a written and/or de facto policy, practice or custom of strip searching all individuals placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail and placed into jail clothing without any requirement of reasonable suspicion, or indeed suspicion of any sort. This written and/or de facto policy made the strip searching of pre-trial detainees routine; neither the nature of the offense charged, the characteristics of the arrestee, nor the circumstances of a particular arrest were relevant to the enforcement of the policy, practice and custom of routine strip searches.
14

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a5goef 1252 of 22
44. Pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, each member of the Class, including every named Plaintiff, was the victim of a routine strip search upon their entry into the Mercer County Jail. These searches were conducted without inquiry into or establishment of reasonable suspicion, and in fact were not supported by reasonable suspiciOn. Strip searches are conducted for individuals arrested for, among other offenses, Driving While Intoxicated, Harassment and Trespassing.
45. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to this written and/or de facto policy, the victims of the unlawful strip searcheseach member of the class, including every named Plaintiff - has suffered or will suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
Facts Applicable to the Named Plaintiffs A TRAFFORD BOISSELLE
46. Trafford Boisselle was arrested on January 2, 2006 on open warrants relating to driving offense and one disorderly persons offense.
47. Upon arrival of the Mercer County Correctional Facility Mr. Boiselle was required to undress in the shower area in the presence of an observing Correctional Officer and other inmates. Mr. Boisselle was required to bend down and cough in a state of full undress, in the presence of Correctional Staff and other inmates.
48. Defendants strip searched him according to policy without reasonable suspicion of drug or weapon possession.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful strip search conducted pursuant to County and Sheriffs Department policy, practice and custom, Mr. Boisselle
15

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a6goef 1262 of 22
has suffered and continues to suffer psychological pain, humiliation, suffering and mental anguish.
CAUSES OF ACTION AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Violation of Constitutional Rights Under Color of State Law --Unreasonable Search and Failure to Implement Municipal Policies to Avoid
Constitutional Deprivations Under Color of State Law-50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs I through 49. 51. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches by law enforcement officers, and prohibits officers from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for misdemeanors or violations absent some particularized suspicion that the individual in question has either contraband or weapons. 52. The actions of Defendants detailed above violated Plaintiffs rights under the United States Constitution. Simply put, it was not objectively reasonable for Mercer County Corrections Officers to strip search Plaintiff and Class members based on their arrests for misdemeanor/violation charges. It was also not objectively reasonable for the Policy Making Defendants to order/direct Mercer County Corrections Officers to conduct such searches. 53. These strip searches were conducted pursuant to the policy, custom or practice of the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Correctional Facility and the Mercer County
16

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a7goef 1272 of 22
Sheriff's Department. As such, the County of Mercer is directly liable for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
54. Upon information and belief, Sheriff Larkin, Undersheriff Gerasimowicz, Undersheriff Tobolski, Undersheriff Gerald, Officer Kemler, Officer McEwan, Warden Tyler and Deputy Warden Hendrick are responsible for establishing the policies and procedures to be utilized in the operation of the Mercer County Jail, and are responsible for the implementation of the strip search policy questioned in this lawsuit. As such, Larkin, Gerasimowicz, Tobolski, Gerald, Tyler and Hendrick are each individually responsible for the damages of the named Plaintiff and members of the Class.
55. Sheriff Larkin, Undersheriff Gerasimowicz, Undersheriff Tobolski, Undersheriff Gerald, Officer Kemler, Officer McEwan, Warden Tyler and Deputy Warden Hendrick knew that the MCJ's strip search policy was illegal, and acted willfully, knowingly, and with specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs and members of the Class of their Constitutional rights.
56. This conduct on the part of all Defendants represents a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that their actions were undertaken under color of state law.
57. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts described above, Plaintiff has been irreparably injured.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
-- Demand for Declaratory Judgment-58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every allegation stated in paragraphs I through 57.
17

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a8goef 1282 of 22
59. The policy, custom and practice of the Mercer County Sheriff's Department, the County of Mercer and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Mercer County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
60. Plaintiff and members of the Class request that this Court issue a declaratory judgment, and that it declare the strip search policy of the County of Mercer and the Mercer County Sheriffs Department to be unconstitutional.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS -- Demand for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction --
61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallege each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1 through 59.
62. The policy, custom and practice of the Mercer County Sheriff's Department, the County of Mercer and the Policy Making Defendants is clearly unconstitutional, in that these entities and individuals are directing/conducting the strip searches of all individuals placed into the Mercer County Jail without any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have either contraband or weapons.
63. Upon information and belief, this policy is currently in place at the Mercer County Jail, with new and/or prospective members of the Class being subjected to the harms that have already been inflicted upon the named Plaintiff.
64. The continuing pattern of strip searching individuals charged with mmor crimes (and less) will cause irreparable harm to the new and/or prospective members of the Class, an adequate remedy for which does not exist at law.
18

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP1a9goef 1292 of 22
65. Plaintiff demands that the County of Mercer, the Mercer County Sheriffs Department, the Policy Making Defendants and Mercer County Corrections Officers immediately desist from strip searching individuals placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail absent any particularized suspicion that the individuals in question have· either contraband or weapons, and seek both a preliminary and permanent injunction from this Court ordering as much..
DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 66. The actions of the Individual Defendants detailed herein are outrageous, in that they continue to propagate an illegal strip search policy even though they know for a fact that their actions are unconstitutional. 67. It is clear that the Policy Making Defendants, the County of Mercer and the Mercer County Sheriffs Department have no respect for the civil rights of individual citizens or for the rule of law. Consequently, an award of punitive damages is necessary to punish the Policy Making Defendants, and to send a message to them that the requirements of the United States Constitution also apply to government officials in Mercer County.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 68. The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Trafford Boisselle, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: A. An order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
19

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP2a0goef 2202 of 22
B. A judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action detailed herein, awarding Compensatory Damages to each named Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be determined by a Jury and/or the Court on both an individual and a class wide basis.
C. A judgment against Defendant Kevin C. Larkin on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action.
D. A judgment against Defendant Michael D. Gerasimowicz on Plaintiff's First. Cause of Action.
E. A judgment against Defendant Dennis J. Tobolski on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action.
F. A judgment against Defendant Michcal B. Gerald on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action.
G. A judgment against Defendant John A. Kemler on Plaintiff's First Cause of Action.
H. A judgment against Defendant John J. McEwan on Plaintiff's First Cause of Action.
I. A judgment against Defendant Shirley Tyler on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action.
J. A judgment against Defendant Roy Hendrick on Plaintiffs First Cause of Action.
K. A declaratory judgment against all Defendants declaring the County of Mercer and the Mercer County Sheriffs Department's policy, practice and custom of strip and visual cavity searching all detainees entering the Mercer County Jail,
20

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP2a1goef 2212 of 22

regardless of the cnme charged or suspicion of contraband, to be

unconstitutional and improper.

L. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from

continuing to strip and visual cavity search individuals charged with

misdemeanors or minor crimes absent particularized, reasonable suspicion

that the arrestee subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other

contraband.

M. A monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of this action, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

R,espectfully submitted by:

Dated: May 5, 2006 Trenton, NJ

Is/ William Riback William Riback, Esquire Bar# 01358-1994 527 Cooper Street, 2"d Floor Camden, New Jersey 08102 856.342.9700

Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esquire Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 202.789.3960

Seth R. Lesser, Esquire Fran L. Rudich, Esquire · LOCKS LAW FIRM 457 Haddenfield Road, Suite 500 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002 856.663.8200
-and-

II 0 E. 55th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY I0022 212.838.3333

Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esquire

One Steuben Place

·

21

CaseC3a:0s6e-c3v:3-032-a0v6-50-0G0E0B1-TJDBocuDmoecnutm4ent F1iled F0i5le/0d50/250/0056/200P6ageP2a2goef 2222 of 22 Albany, NY 12207 518.434.1718 Gary E. Mason, Esquire THE MASON LAW FIRM, PLLC 1225 19'h Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.429.2290 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND PROPOSED CLASS
22

 
 ' .

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 364

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TRAFFORD BOISSELLE, Plaintiff(s),
- vsCOUNTY OF MERCER, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Civil Action No. 3:06-2065 (GEB)

ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND JUDGMENT

THIS CASE coming on for hearing before the Honorable Tonianne Bongiovanni,

IZ clo , ~ U.S.M.J. on

2rx/i, pursuant to this Court's Order of~~~

~in

order for this Court to conduct a final fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed

Settlement Agreement between the parties is fair, reasonable and adequate, and to address

Class Counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs; and the Class

Members being represented by Class Counsel and Defendants being represented by their

attorney;

AND THE COURT having read and considered the Settlement Agreement, the

Notice Plan, the Memorandum of Law submitted by Class Counsel and the Certification

of Seth R. Lesser, one of the Class Counsel, in support of the Settlement, having received

evidence at the hearing, having heard arguments from Class Counsel and the Defendants,

and having considered all matters heretofore had in this case, now makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This action was commenced on May 5, 2006, as a class action.

' '

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 365

2. After several years of intensive litigation, including extensive discovery and motion practice, and as a result of intensive, arm's length negotiations between Class Counsel and Defendants, including settlement conferences before former Magistrate Judge Joel Rosen, the parties have reached accord with respect to a Settlement that provides substantial benefits to Settlement Class Members, in return for a release and dismissal of the claims at issue in this case against the Defendants ("Settlement Agreement"). The resulting Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on November 20, 2008. 3. As part of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval, this Court approved a proposed Notice Plan and Class Notice, which provided Settlement Class Members notice of the proposed settlement. The Notice Plan provided an opportunity for Class Members to file objections to the Settlement, and an opportunity to opt-out of the Settlement. 4. As of the deadline for the filing of objections, no objections were filed. Given the size of this Settlement, and the Notice Plan described above, this Court finds that the comparatively low number of objections is indicative of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Settlement with the Defendants. Following the deadline date, a single objection, not filed or served in compliance with the Order Granting Preliminary Approval and the terms of the Notice, was received from a Class Member who did not provide any substantive basis for his objection, only that he thought he should receive a greater amount. 5. Class Counsel has filed with the Court an affidavit from The Garden City Group declaring that the mailing of the Court-approved notice, consistent with the Notice Plan,

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 366
has been completed. 6. The Court finds that the published notice, mailed notice and Internet posting constitute the best practicable notice of the Fairness Hearing, proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, and other matters set forth in the Class Notice and Short Form Notice; and that such notice constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to all members of the Settlement Class, and complied fully with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, the laws of New Jersey and any other applicable law. 7. Any persons who wished to be excluded from this action were provided an opportunity to "opt-out" pursuant to the Notice. One individual has excluded himself, Herman Smith. 8. Settlement Class Members, aside from Mr. Herman Smith are bound by the: Settlement, Settlement Agreement, releases contained within the Settlement Agreement, and the Final Order and Judgment. Settlement Class Members do not have a further opportunity to opt-out ofthis Action. 9. Any Class Member who did not timely file and serve an objection in writing to the Settlement Agreement, to the entry of Final Order and Judgment, or to Plaintiffs Class Counsel's application for fees, costs, and expenses, in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Class Notice and mandated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, is deemed to have waived any such objection by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. 10. On the basis of all of the issues in this litigation, and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Court is of the opinion that the Settlement is a fair, reasonable

' '

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 367

and adequate compromise of the claims against the Defendants in this case, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a number of factors which the Court has considered in affirming this Settlement, including:
a. The liability issues in this case have been vigorously contested. b. This Settlement has the benefit of providing relief to Class Members now, without further litigation, under circumstances where the liability issues are still vigorously contested among the parties to this litigation and among the parties to the individual litigation. This Settlement provides Class Members with a substantial monetary benefit.
c. This Settlement is clearly a product of hard-fought litigation between the parties, and not a result of any collusion on the part of Class Counsel or Counsel for the Defendants. 11. The claims procedure established under the Settlement Agreement is fair, a simplified process, and workable. In any event, the Court will retain jurisdiction to work out any unanticipated problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE COURT HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 12. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. 13. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following Settlement Class is certified for purposes of final settlement:
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Mercer County Correctional Facility after being charged with disorderly person's offenses, violations of Title 39 (traffic offenses), Municipal Ordinance infractions and other non-indictable

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 368
offenses and were strip searched upon their entry into the Mercer County Correctional Facility pursuant to the custom and practice of the Mercer County Sheriffs Department and the County of Mercer. The class period commences on May 5, 2004 and extends until August 17, 2006. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. For purposes of class defmition, multiple entries into the Facility shall be viewed as a single entry. 12. The Court finds that, for the purpose ofthis Settlement, the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied, and that a class action is an appropriate method for resolving the disputes in this litigation. All the prerequisites for class certification under Rule 23 are present. The Class Members are ascertainable and too numerous to be joined. Questions of law and fact common to all Class members predominate over individual issues and should be determined in one proceeding with respect to all Class members. The Class Representative's claims are typical of those of the Class. The Class action mechanism is superior to alternative means for adjudicating and resolving this action. 13. The Settlement Class Representative, Trafford Boiselle, is entitled to and is hereby awarded a payment of $20,000, in recognition of the efforts he undertook in connection with this lawsuit. All Class Members who have made claims on the settlement are entitled to receive their pro rata share of the settlement fund after administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards are deducted from the fund. 14. Class Counsel are qualified, experienced, and have aggressively litigated this case, thereby demonstrating their adequacy as counsel for the Settlement Class. Seth Lesser, Esquire, of Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP, Rye Brook, New York; Charles J. LaDuca, Esquire, of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Elmer Robert Keach, III, of the Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, Amsterdam, New York; and

' .

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 369

William A. Riback of William Riback, LLC, are hereby appointed as Counsel for the Settlement Class. 11. Class Counsel submitted to the Court and served on the Defendants their application for reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This Court has considered Class Counsel's request and hereby grants the request. The Court finds that final approval of attorneys' fees in the amount of $540,000 is warranted. The Court finds that this amount is justified by the work performed, skill, risks taken and the results achieved by Class Counsel. The Court also finds that approval of the $19,236.49 attorneys' costs application is warranted, based on Plaintiffs counsel's out-of-pocket expenses as demonstrated by the Certification of Seth R. Lesser and that approval of payment of such other incidental expenses, not to exceed $500, as may have been incurred or will be incurred in connection with the Final Approval Hearing and the finalization of the Settlement is also warranted. 15. The Court finds that the payment of the incurred and anticipated expenses ofthe Claims Administrator, the Garden City Group, as set forth in the Certification of Seth R. Lesser is reasonable and justified. 16. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The motion for Final Approval of the proposed Settlement is GRANTED. 2. The Settlement Class Representative, Trafford Boiselle, is entitled to and is hereby awarded a payment of $20,000 in recognition of the efforts he undertook in

• •

'

J

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 370

connection with this lawsuit. All Class Members who have made claims on the settlement are entitled to receive their pro rata share of the settlement fund after administrative expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards are deducted from the fund. 3. The Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses is granted in the amount of$540,000 in fees and $19,236.49 for expenses, as well as such other incidental expenses, not to exceed $500, as may have been incurred or will be incurred in connection with the Final Approval Hearing and finalization of the Settlement and the Claims Administrator is ordered upon Final Approval to pay such amounts to Seth R. Lesser ofKlafter Olsen & Lesser LLP for disbursement to the Class Counsel's law firms. 4. The costs and expenses incurred to date or hereafter incurred for finalization of the Settlement by the Claims Administrator, estimated to be $500,000, but not to exceed $525,000 without leave of Court and subject to approval by Class Counsel, are granted for payment and the Garden City Group can disburse to itself from the Settlement funds such funds, upon approval by Class Counsel. 4. This Action and all claims against the Settling Defendant are hereby dismissed with prejudice, but the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the Action, all Parties, and Settlement Class Members, to interpret and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of this Settlement Agreement. 5. All Class Members who have not timely filed an opt-out request are barred and enjoined from commencing and/or prosecuting any claim or action against the

• "

' I

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 44 Filed 04/20/09 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 371

Defendants. Any Class Member who has not timely filed a request to exclude himself or

herself shall be enjoined from initiating and/or proceeding as a class action in any forum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ~ dg ~ 1

~<D/~ Toniann . Bongtovan United States Magistrate Judge

 
 Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

______________________________

:

TRAFFORD BOISSELLE,

:

:

Plaintiff(s),

:

Civil Action No. 3:06-2065 (GEB)

:

- vs -

:

:

COUNTY OF MERCER, et al., :

:

Defendant(s).

:

_____________________________ :

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The plaintiff, Trafford Boiselle (“Plaintiff”), by and through his counsel, and the defendants (the plaintiff and the defendants together, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement providing, subject to the approval of the Court, for settlement of the claims herein described against the defendants. WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned class action lawsuit against the defendants, the County of Mercer, Mercer County Department of Sheriff, Kevin C. Larkin, Michael D. Gerasimowicz, Dennis J. Tobolski, Michael B. Gerald, John A. Kemler, John J. McEwan, Mercer County Department of Corrections, Shirley Tyler, and Roy Hendrick (together, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants had violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under color of state law by illegally strip searching him and others similarly situated upon entry into the Mercer County Correctional Facility. WHEREAS, Plaintiff further alleges that, in violation of law and pursuant to the policy of the County of Mercer, all persons such as Plaintiff and the members of the class he purports to represent, who entered the Mercer County Correctional Facility charged with disorderly person’s
1

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 151
offenses, violations of Title 39 (traffic offenses), Municipal Ordinance infractions and other nonindictable offenses, were strip searched absent any particularized suspicion that they possessed weapons or other contraband.
WHEREAS, Defendants, subsequent to the filing of this action, substantially altered their practice to address the claims raised in this litigation on or about August 17, 2006.
WHEREAS, Defendants have denied and continue to deny Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability of any kind to Plaintiff or to any members of the class (as defined hereinafter).
WHEREAS, the Parties to this Settlement Agreement have conducted a thorough examination and investigation of the facts and law relating to the matters in this litigation and that such examination included documentary and deposition discovery in the course of the litigation.
WHEREAS, the Defendants have concluded that settlement is desirable in order to avoid the time, expense, and inherent uncertainties of defending protracted litigation and to resolve finally and completely all pending and potential claims of the Plaintiff and all members of the proposed class relating to alleged conduct involved in this litigation; and do so without admission of fault or liability.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Class Counsel recognize the costs and risks of prosecuting this litigation, and believe that it is in their interest, and the interest of all Class Members, to resolve this litigation, and any and all claims against Defendants, as well as all employees of the County of Mercer who may have devised, promulgated or enforced the policy or participated in the conduct that is the subject of this Settlement Agreement.
WHEREAS, substantial, adversarial settlement negotiations have taken place between the 2

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 3 of 26 PageID: 152
Parties, including mediation conducted by former United States Magistrate Judge Joel B. Rosen, and, as a result, this Settlement Agreement has been reached, subject to the Court approval process set forth herein.
WHEREAS, the Parties believe that this Settlement Agreement offers significant benefits to members of the proposed class and is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of putative class members.
WHEREAS, this Settlement Agreement is made and entered into by and among Defendants and Plaintiff Trafford Boiselle, individually and on behalf of a class (the “Class”) of similarly situated persons (the “Class Members”) defined as:
All persons who were initially placed into the custody of the Mercer County Correctional Facility after being charged disorderly person’s offenses, violations of Title 39 (traffic offenses), Municipal Ordinance infractions and other non-indictable offenses, and were strip searched upon their entry into the Mercer County Correctional Facility pursuant to the custom and practice of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Mercer. The class period commences on May 5, 2004 and extends until August 17, 2006. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. For purposes of class definition multiple entries into the Facility shall be viewed as a single entry. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned as follows:
I. DEFINITIONS As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. Where appropriate, terms used in the singular shall be deemed to include the plural and vice versa. A. Claim Form. “Claim Form” shall mean a form in substantially the same form as that attached hereto as Exhibit A. B. Claims Period. “Claims Period” shall mean the time period during which claims may be
3

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 4 of 26 PageID: 153
made by Settlement Class Members, extending from the Notice Date until the date 120 days thereafter, including weekends and holidays, provided that if the last day of the Claims Period falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, then the end of the Claims Period shall be the next following day that is not a weekend or Federal holiday. C. Class Counsel. “Class Counsel” shall mean: Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Haddonfield, New Jersey and White Plains, New York; The Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC, Amsterdam, New York; and William Riback, LLC, Haddonfield, New Jersey. D. Class Notice. “Class Notice” shall mean the Court-approved form of notice in substantially the same form as Exhibit B. E. Class Representative: “Class Representative” shall mean Plaintiff Trafford Boiselle. F. Class Settlement. “Class Settlement” shall mean the terms provided in this Settlement Agreement. G. Court. “Court” shall mean the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni presiding, or her duly appointed or designated successor. H. Defendants. “Defendants” shall mean the County of Mercer, Mercer County Department of Sheriff, Kevin C. Larkin, Michael D. Gerasimowicz, Dennis J. Tobolski, Michael B. Gerald, John A. Kemler, John J. McEwan, Mercer County Department of Corrections, Shirley Tyler, and Roy Hendrick, and shall include all employees of the County of Mercer who may have devised, promulgated or enforced the policy or participated in the conduct that is the subject of this Settlement Agreement.
4

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 5 of 26 PageID: 154
I. Defendants’ Counsel. “Defendants’ Counsel” shall mean Gregory Giordano, Esquire, Lenox, Socey, Wilgus, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano & Casey LLC, 3131 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648. J. Distribution Amount. “Distribution Amount” shall mean the amount available to the Class Members from the Settlement Fund after payment of the costs of notice and administration of the Settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and incentive award to the Class Representative. K. Effective Date. “Effective Date” shall mean thirty days from the date on which the Settlement has been finally approved by the Court, and/or thirty days from the date on which any appeals from final approval are resolved. L. Final Approval Hearing. “Final Approval Hearing” shall mean the hearing at which the Court will consider and finally decide whether to enter the Final Judgment. M. Final Judgment. “Final Judgment” shall mean that Court order that finally certifies the Settlement Class, approves this Settlement Agreement, approves payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and makes such other final rulings as are contemplated by this Settlement Agreement, in substantially the same form as Exhibit C. N. Litigation. “Litigation” shall mean the above-captioned lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as No. 3:06-cv-2065 (GEB) (TJB). O. Mediator. The “Mediator” shall mean The Honorable Joel B. Rosen, former United States Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. P. Notice Program. “Notice Program” shall mean the program for disseminating the Class Notice to Settlement Class Members, including public dissemination of the Summary Notice, in accordance with the terms herein. Q. Notice Date. “Notice Date” shall mean the date upon which Class Notice is mailed to
5

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 6 of 26 PageID: 155
known Class Members in accordance with the terms herein. R. Objection Date. “Objection Date” shall mean the date agreed upon by the Parties or otherwise ordered by the Court by which Settlement Class Members must submit any objection to the Settlement Agreement's terms or provisions and submit any required statements, proof, or other materials and/or argument. S. Opt-Out Deadline. “Opt-Out Deadline” shall mean the date agreed upon by the Plaintiff and Defendants or otherwise ordered by the Court by which any Settlement Class Members who do not wish to be included in the Settlement Class and participate in the Settlement must complete the acts necessary to properly effect such election to opt out. T. Opt-Out List. “Opt-Out List” shall mean a written list prepared by the Settlement Administrator of the names of all Settlement Class Members who submit timely Requests for Exclusion or Opt-Out Notices. U. Opt-Out Notice. “Opt-Out Notice” or “Opt-Out” shall mean a Request for Exclusion. V. Parties. “Parties” shall mean the Plaintiff and Defendants. W. Plaintiff. “Plaintiff” shall mean Trafford Boiselle. X. Preliminary Approval Order. “Preliminary Approval Order” shall mean the order of the Court preliminarily approving this Settlement Agreement and conditionally certifying a provisional Settlement Class, in substantially the same form as Exhibit D. Y. Release. “Release” shall mean the release described in Section VII herein. Z. Released Claims. “Released Claims” shall mean and include any and all claims or causes of action by or on behalf of any and all Settlement Class Members (and their predecessors, successors, heirs, administrators, executors, agents, trustees, representatives, and assigns) that are released by the Release described in Section VII herein.
6

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 7 of 26 PageID: 156
AA. Released Parties. “Released Parties” shall mean all persons or entities against whom Released Claims will be released pursuant to the Release described in Section VII herein. BB. Request for Exclusion. “Request for Exclusion” shall mean any request by any Settlement Class Member for exclusion from the Settlement Class in compliance with Section V herein. CC. Reverter. “Reverter” shall mean the funds that Defendants shall receive, after administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, notice costs, and Class Representative incentive payments are paid, if less than 5% of Class Members make claims upon the Settlement Fund. In that event, the maximum payment to each Class Member will be $5,000, and Defendants will receive a reverter of 50% of any remaining funds. The rest of the reverter will be allocated to improvements at the Mercer County Correction Center. DD. Settlement. “Settlement” shall mean the agreement by the Plaintiff and Defendants to resolve the Litigation, the terms of which have been memorialized in this Settlement Agreement. EE. Settlement Administrator. “Settlement Administrator” shall mean the qualified party selected by the Plaintiff and Defendants and designated in the Preliminary Approval Order to administer the Settlement, including implementing the Notice Program. Neither Plaintiff nor any other of the Defendants shall have any responsibility for any acts or omissions of the Settlement Administrator. The parties have agreed to select the Garden City Group as the Settlement Administrator. FF. Settlement Agreement. “Settlement Agreement” shall mean this Settlement Agreement, including any amendment hereto pursuant to Section X. D hereof, and all the exhibits attached hereto. GG. Settlement Class. “Settlement Class” shall mean:
7

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 8 of 26 PageID: 157
All persons who were placed into the custody of the Mercer County Correctional Facility after being charged with non-indictable offenses such as misdemeanors, violations, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments, warrants for child support, or other non-indictable offenses and were strip searched upon their entry into the Mercer County Correctional Facility pursuant to the custom and practice of the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department and the County of Mercer. The class period commences on May 5, 2004 and extends until August 17, 2006. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendants and any and all of their respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees. HH. Settlement Class Members. “Settlement Class Members” shall mean all persons in the Settlement Class who do not exclude themselves pursuant to Section V herein. II. Settlement Fund. “Settlement Fund” shall mean a fund, governed by terms to be agreed to between Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, which shall be placed in an escrow account and utilized to administer the monetary requirements of the Settlement. The Settlement Fund will be established by Class Counsel and entitled the “Mercer County Qualified Settlement Fund” and treated as trust fund monies under relevant New Jersey ethical standards. JJ. Settlement Amount. “Settlement Amount” shall mean the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) to be paid by or on behalf of the Defendants. KK. Settlement Website: Class Counsel will establish a website to provide information about the settlement with a World Wide Web address of www.mercercountystripsearch.com, or something substantially similar. LL. Summary Notice. “Summary Notice” shall mean a notice in substantially the same form as that which appears at Exhibit E. MM. Website Administrator: “Website Administrator” shall mean the qualified party selected by the Plaintiff and Defendants and designated in the Preliminary Approval Order to administer the Settlement Website. Neither Plaintiff nor any of the Defendants shall have any responsibility for any acts or omissions of the Website Administrator. The parties agree to select I Partners,
8

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 9 of 26 PageID: 158
Inc. Fonda, New York, as the website administrator. II. REQUIRED EVENTS
A. Promptly after execution of this Settlement Agreement by all Parties: 1. Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel shall use their best efforts to cause the
Court to enter the Preliminary Approval Order and the Final Judgment in substantially the forms attached hereto as Exhibits D and C, respectively.
2. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement shall jointly move for entry of a Preliminary Approval Order in substantially the same form as Exhibit D, which by its terms shall:
a. Preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the certification of the Class for purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, as within the range of fair, reasonable and adequate settlements for purposes of issuing notice; and
b. Approve the contents of the Class Notice and methods in the Notice Plan; c. Schedule a Final Approval Hearing to review comments regarding the proposed Class Settlement and to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Class Settlement and the application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and to consider whether the Court should issue a Final Judgment (in substantially the same form as Exhibit C) approving the Class Settlement, granting Class Counsel's application for fees and expenses, granting the Incentive Bonus application by the Class Representative, and dismissing the Litigation with prejudice. 3. Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel will use their best efforts, consistent with the terms of this Settlement Agreement, to promptly obtain a Final Judgment. 4. In the event that the Court fails to issue the Preliminary Approval Order or fails to
9

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 10 of 26 PageID: 159
issue the Final Judgment, Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel agree to use their best efforts, consistent with this Settlement Agreement, to cure any defect identified by the Court; provided, however, that in no event shall any Defendants be required to agree to any such cure that would increase the cost or burden of the Settlement Agreement to such Defendants or diminish the agreed upon settlement.
5. The Parties acknowledge that prompt approval, consummation, and implementation of the Settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement are essential. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out and effectuate the purposes and terms of this Settlement Agreement. It addition, they shall promptly perform their respective obligations hereunder and shall promptly take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and all additional documents and all other materials and/or information reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms of this Settlement Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby. Any disputes regarding the Parties’ obligations under this paragraph shall be submitted for decision by the Mediator and his decision shall be binding on the Parties.
III. SETTLEMENT TERMS A. Provision of New Policies and Corrections Officer Training
1. The Defendants affirmatively state that, effective August 17, 2006, Mercer County stopped strip searching detainees admitted to the Mercer County Correctional Facility on a blanket basis, and also stopped strip searching non-indictable detainees in the absence of reasonable suspicion. Mercer County acknowledges that its change in practice was undertaken because of the institution of this litigation by Plaintiff and proposed Class Counsel.
2. The Defendants revised their written strip search policy and maintain that their current strip search policy, with an effective date of August 17, 2006, is constitutional.
10

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 11 of 26 PageID: 160
3. Mercer County represents, by executing this agreement, that all current corrections officers who work in the Mercer County Correctional Facility Admission and Intake Units have been trained regarding the new strip search policy and in particular on when strip searches may and may not be performed.
4. Defendants will take reasonable steps to ensure that all corrections officers abide by the revised strip search policy.
5. The parties acknowledge the possible need for limited confirmatory discovery regarding the corrections officer training and class size. B. Settlement Fund
1. Defendants will cause to be paid into the Settlement Fund the sum of $1,800,000 (one million eight hundred thousand dollars).
2. Upon entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Mercer County will pay into the Settlement Fund the amount of $200,000 (two hundred thousand dollars) (the “Initial Contribution”) to be used by the Settlement and Website Administrators to cover the initial costs of Notice and administration of the Settlement. If, at any time, whether by order of any court or because of any Defendant exercising any option to withdraw, the Settlement does not become final, then any unspent money remaining from the Initial Contribution shall be returned to Mercer County with no obligation on the part of any party to repay any portion of the money actually spent.
3. Defendants’ remaining monetary obligation of $1,600,000 (one million six hundred thousand dollars) will be provided for deposit into the Settlement Fund by the Effective Date by either wire transfer or check.
4. All administrative expenses, including the costs of Settlement administration, 11

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 12 of 26 PageID: 161
website administration and the provision of notice to Class Members, as well as the amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys’ fees and costs, and incentive awards to the Class Representative, will be deducted from the Settlement Amount prior to determining the “Distribution Amount.” C. Payments to Class Members
1. Each Class Member who submits a timely Claim Form will be entitled to receive their proportionate share of the Distribution Amount, subject to the provisions of Paragraph III.C.3. This amount will be distributed to the Class based on the Plan of Distribution attached to this agreement as Exhibit F.
2. No Class Member shall be entitled to more than his or her individual pro-rata share of the Distribution Amount regardless of the number of times he or she has been booked and/or strip searched at the Mercer County Correctional Facility.
3. In the event that less than 5% of Class Members make claims upon the Settlement Fund, the maximum payment to each Class Member will be $5,000, and Defendants will receive a reverter of 50% of any remaining funds. The rest of the reverter will be allocated to improvements at the Mercer County Correctional Facility.
4. No portion of the Distribution Amount shall be disbursed before the Effective Date, except as set forth in Section III.D.1, below.
5. The Parties anticipate that late claims may be filed subsequent to the end of the Claims Period. Late claims may be allowed, if submitted on or before the date of the Final Approval Hearing, under the sole discretion of Class Counsel for good cause shown. All late claims will be approved by the Court prior to being paid as part of the distribution of the settlement.
12

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 13 of 26 PageID: 162
6. The Parties acknowledge that Class Members have an important interest in being able to maintain their privacy in filing a claim on this class action settlement. Accordingly, the Class list and list of claimants on this Settlement will be compiled and exclusively maintained by the Class Counsel. Class Counsel will keep the list of claimants confidential and will protect this list from public disclosure. The Defendants may, upon request, inspect any such lists at the offices of Class Counsel William Riback, LLC, Haddonfield, New Jersey. D. Attorneys Fees and Expenses
1. Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel will also petition the Court for an award of pre-settlement cost and expenses, in an amount not to exceed $20,000, which will be deducted from the Settlement Fund. Defendants shall not oppose Class Counsel’s application for said award of fees and expenses, nor will they oppose any appeal filed by Class Counsel relative to their application for an award of attorneys’ fees, so long as such application for attorneys’ fees and expenses conforms with the Settlement Agreement. All class counsel attorney’s fees will be drawn from the settlement fund. E. Additional Discovery
1. Defendants will continue to cooperate in a timely and reasonable manner in discovery to determine class size and Class Members’ names and addresses. The Defendants have provided Class Counsel or their agents with access to the computerized booking records of the Mercer County Correctional Facility for the purposes of assembling a class list. Defendants will continue to provide such cooperation to Class Counsel. Subject to applicable law, the Defendants will not object to providing social security numbers or dates of birth for the purposes of verifying the identity of individuals who make a claim.
13

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 14 of 26 PageID: 163
F. Partial Distribution Pending Appeal 1. In the event that Final Approval of the Settlement is appealed by either party or a
third party objector, and if the payment of some portion of the Settlement Fund is not subject to dispute, that undisputed portion of the Settlement Fund shall be distributed in accordance with this agreement. If the distribution of some or all of the Settlement proceeds is in dispute due to a pending appeal, the disputed amount will be placed in an insured interest bearing escrow account and shall not be distributed during the pendency of the appeal. In the event that Final Approval of the Settlement is overturned on appeal, all funds, including interest, will be refunded to the Defendants and/or their insurers, as per their respective contributions to the Settlement Fund, with the exception of the Initial Contribution, detailed in § III(B)(2), and any additional notice and administration costs incurred above the Initial Contribution.
IV. NOTIFICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS A. Responsibilities of the Settlement Administrator and Website Administrator
1. The Settlement Administrator shall implement and administer the Notice Program.
2. The Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for, without limitation: (i) mailing the Class Notices; (ii) arranging for the publication of the Summary Notice; (iii) responding to requests for a copy of the Class Notice; (iv) otherwise administering the Notice Program; and (v) distributing payments to the Settlement Class Members. The Notice Program shall comply with all requirements of applicable law. The Settlement Administrator will maintain an appropriate insurance policy to protect against any violation of its fiduciary duty to the Court, Class Members, or Class Counsel.
3. The Website Administrator will maintain the settlement website, 14

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 15 of 26 PageID: 164
www.mercercountystripsearch.com, or something substantially similar, which will provide information about the settlement to Class Members, including notice and claims documents, court documents, and a copy of the Settlement Agreement. B. Notice
1. Notice will be provided to the Class by direct mailing of Class Notice and a Claim Form to all individuals at their last known or readily ascertainable address and by publication in the Trenton Times and the Trentonian on at least one day per week for three consecutive weeks commencing on the Notice date, and on one occasions during the last ten days of the Claims Period. The mailed notice will be provided in Spanish and English, and newspaper advertisements will provide instruction that a Spanish copy of the notice will be provided upon request.
2. The Settlement Administrator shall also provide a copy of the Class Notice and Claim Form to anyone who requests notice through written communication to the Settlement Administrator, or through a toll-free telephone number to be established by the Settlement Administrator. The Website Administrator will also provide downloadable copies of notices, claim forms, court decisions and other information to class members through a dedicated internet website, www.mercercountystripsearch.com.
3. Defendants will cooperate in the Notice Program by providing Class Counsel and/or the Settlement Administrator with information necessary to affect notice to the Class including, but not limited to, cooperating with efforts to obtain the last known address of Class Members from County records. The Defendants will provide access to their computer database regarding all intakes into the Mercer County Corrections Facility during the Class period.
4. If, after the initial mailing, the Notice is returned as undeliverable, the 15

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 16 of 26 PageID: 165
Claims Administrator will attempt to locate the Class Members by way of a national locator database or service and, if another address is found, remail the Notice to that new address.
5. The Settlement Administrator shall provide an affidavit to the Court, with a copy to Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, attesting to the measures undertaken to provide Notice of the Settlement. The Website Administrator will also provide an affidavit attesting to activity on the settlement website, including number of visitors and number of documents downloaded.
6. The Settlement Administrator (and any person retained by the Settlement Administrator) shall sign a confidentiality agreement in a form agreed to by the Parties, which shall provide that the names, addresses and other information about specific Class Members and/or specific Class Members that is provided to it by Defendants, Class Counsel, or by individual Settlement Class Members, shall be treated as confidential and shall be used only by the Settlement Administrator as required by this Settlement Agreement.
7. Class Counsel will employ an interpreter on a per diem basis to assist Settlement Class Members whose primary language is Spanish in filing claims under the settlement. The costs of this interpreter will paid as an administrative cost.
V. REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION BY CLASS MEMBERS A. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to any Request for Exclusion. Any Class Member may make a Request for Exclusion by mailing or delivering such request in writing to the Settlement Administrator. Any Request for Exclusion must be postmarked or delivered not later than the Opt-Out Deadline. Any Request for Exclusion shall state the name, address and telephone number of the person requesting exclusion and contain a clear statement communicating that such person elects to be excluded from the Settlement, does not wish to be a
16

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 17 of 26 PageID: 166
Settlement Class Member, and elects to be excluded from any judgment entered pursuant to the Settlement.
B. Any Class Member who submits a timely Request for Exclusion may not file an objection to the Settlement and shall be deemed to have waived any rights or benefits under this Settlement Agreement.
C. Not later than three (3) business days after the deadline for submission of Requests for Exclusion, the Settlement Administrator shall provide an Opt-Out List to Class Counsel and to Defendants’ Counsel together with copies of the Request for Exclusion. Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel shall jointly report the names appearing on the Opt-Out List to the Court at the time of the Final Approval Hearing.
D. Class Counsel agrees that they will not represent any individuals who opt out from the Settlement in asserting claims against Defendants that are the subject of this agreement.
VI. OBJECTIONS BY SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS A. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be heard orally at the Final Approval Hearing, or who wishes for any objection to be considered, must file a written notice of objection by the Objection Date. Such objection shall state the name, address and telephone number of the person and provide proof of membership in the Settlement Class, as well as a detailed statement of each objection asserted, including the grounds for objection and reasons for appearing and being heard, together with any documents such person wishes to be considered in support of the objection. B. The agreed-upon procedures and requirements for filing objections in connection with the Final Approval Hearing are intended to ensure the efficient administration of justice and the orderly presentation of any Settlement Class Members' objections to the Settlement
17

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 18 of 26 PageID: 167
Agreement, in accordance with such Settlement Class Members’ due process rights. The Preliminary Approval Order and Class Notice will require all Settlement Class Members who have any objections to file such notice of objection or request to be heard with the Clerk of the Court, and serve by mail or hand delivery such notice of objection or request to be heard, including all papers or evidence in support thereof, upon one of the Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel, at the addresses set forth in the Class Notice, no later than the Objection Date. The Preliminary Approval Order will further provide that objectors who fail to properly or timely file their objections with the Clerk of the Court, along with the required information and documentation set forth above, or to serve them as provided above shall not be heard during the Final Approval Hearing, nor shall their objections be considered by the Court.
C. In accordance with law, only Class Members who object to the Settlement pursuant to the terms immediately above may appeal any Final Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment shall provide that any Class Member who wishes to appeal Final Judgment, which appeal will delay the distribution of the Settlement to the Class, shall post a bond with this Court in any amount to be determined by the Court as a condition of prosecuting such appeal.
VII. RELEASE, DISMISSAL OF ACTION, AND JURISDICTION OF COURT A. By this Settlement Agreement and the following Release, Defendants, and all of
their respective affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, officers, agents, representatives, insurers and employees, are released from any and all claims or causes of action that were, could have been, or should have been asserted by the named Plaintiff or any member of the Class against the Released Persons, or any of them, based upon or related to the actions that are the subject of this Settlement Agreement.
B. This Settlement Agreement and Release does not affect the rights, if any, of Class 18

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 19 of 26 PageID: 168
Members who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement. C. The administration and consummation of the Settlement as embodied in this
Settlement Agreement shall be under the authority of the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to protect, preserve, and implement the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Release. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction in order to enter such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate in administering and implementing the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, orders enjoining Settlement Class Members from prosecuting claims that are released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
D. Upon the Effective Date and the conclusion of any appeals: (i) the Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims of Class Members; (ii) the Released Parties shall not be subject to liability or expense of any kind to any Settlement Class Members or their successors, predecessors or assigns except as set forth herein; and (iii) Class Members and their successors, predecessors and assigns shall be permanently barred from initiating, asserting, or prosecuting any and all Released Claims against any Released Party in any federal or state court in the United States or any other tribunal.
E. Tolling of Statute of Limitations. Defendants agree that, with respect to any claims asserted in the Litigation that are subsequently asserted by any member of the Class who has properly opted out of the Settlement, Defendants agree that any statute of limitations, repose, or laches defense was tolled from May 5, 2004 until the Court provides Final Approval of this Settlement Agreement. Further, in the event that the Court does not approve this Settlement Agreement, or the Court’s approval of this Settlement Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Settlement Agreement (e.g. on the Effective Date), Defendants agree that, with
19

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 20 of 26 PageID: 169
respect to any claims asserted in the Litigation that are subsequently asserted or maintained in any existing or subsequently filed class action lawsuit, or by any member of the Class, Defendants shall not assert any statute of limitations, repose or laches defense that is premised upon the time period of May 5, 2004, through and including the date of the last of the following events to occur: the entry of the Court’s order disapproving this Settlement Agreement, the appellate court’s decision reversing the Court’s order approving this Settlement Agreement, or the Effective Date, as defined above. This tolling will cease thirty days after one of the events detailed in the preceding sentence comes to pass.
VIII. INCENTIVE AWARDS TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVE A. Given the efforts of the named Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, Defendants will not oppose an application for an incentive award of $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) on behalf of Class Representative Trafford Boiselle, such amount to be paid before distribution to the general Class. It is agreed between the Parties that Mr. Boiselle provided substantial assistance to Class Counsel in the prosecution of this action.
IX. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS A. Class Counsel, who are signatories hereof, represent and warrant that they have the authority, on behalf of Plaintiff, to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate all of the transactions contemplated hereby. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Class Counsel and Plaintiff and constitutes their legal valid and binding obligation. B. Defendants, through their undersigned attorneys, represent and warrant that they have the authority to execute, deliver, and perform this Settlement Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution, delivery and performance by
20

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 21 of 26 PageID: 170
Defendants of this Settlement Agreement and the consummation by them of the actions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of Defendants. This Settlement Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Defendants and constitutes their legal, valid, and binding obligation.
X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. This Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and related documents hereto, are not, and shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendants with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or omission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Any payment of moneys, or any other action taken, by any of the Defendants pursuant to any provision of this Settlement Agreement, shall not at any time be construed or deemed to be, or to evidence, any admission against or concession by Defendants with respect to any wrongdoing, fault, or omission of any kind whatsoever, regardless of whether or not this Settlement Agreement results in entry of a Final Judgment as contemplated herein. Defendants deny any liability to Plaintiff and to all Members of the Class. This provision shall survive the expiration or voiding of the Settlement Agreement. B. This Settlement Agreement is entered into only for purposes of Settlement. In the event that the Effective Date does not occur for any reason or the Final Judgment is not entered, then this Settlement Agreement, including any releases or dismissals hereunder, is cancelled. In the event this Settlement Agreement is cancelled or deemed cancelled, no term or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or any draft thereof, or of the discussion, negotiation, documentation or other part or aspect of the Parties’ settlement discussions shall have any effect, nor shall any such matter be admissible in evidence for any purpose, or used for any purposes whatsoever in
21

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 22 of 26 PageID: 171
the Litigation or in any other litigation, and all Parties shall be restored to their prior rights positions as if the mediation had never occurred and the Settlement Agreement had not been entered into.
C. The headings of the sections and paragraphs of this Settlement Agreement are included for convenience only and shall not be deemed to constitute part of this Settlement Agreement or to affect its construction.
D. This Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by all of the Parties or their counsel.
E. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
F. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of New Jersey, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision, or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.
G. Except as otherwise provided in this Settlement Agreement, each party to this Settlement Agreement shall bear his or its own costs of the Litigation.
H. If any clause, provision or paragraph of this Settlement Agreement shall, for any reason, be held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity, or unenforceability shall not affect any other clause, provision or paragraph of this Settlement Agreement, and this Settlement Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause, paragraph, or other provisions had not been contained herein.
I. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement reserve the right, by agreement and 22

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 23 of 26 PageID: 172
subject to the Court's approval, to grant any reasonable extensions of time that might be necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
J. All applications for Court approval or Court orders required under this Settlement Agreement shall be made on notice to Plaintiff and Defendants.
K. The determination of the terms of, and the drafting of, this Settlement Agreement, including its exhibits, has been by mutual agreement after negotiation, with consideration by and participation of all Parties and their counsel. Since this Settlement Agreement was drafted with the participation of all Parties and their counsel, the presumption that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafter does not apply. Each of the Parties was represented by competent and effective counsel throughout the course of settlement negotiations and in the drafting and execution of this Settlement Agreement, and there was no disparity in bargaining power among the Parties to this Settlement Agreement. In entering into this Settlement Agreement, none of the Parties relied on advice received from any other Party or any other Party’s counsel.
L. Integrated Agreement: 1. All of the exhibits to this Settlement Agreement are material and integral
parts hereof, and are fully incorporated herein by reference. 2. This Settlement Agreement and the exhibits thereto constitute the entire,
fully integrated agreement among the Parties and cancel and supersede all prior written and unwritten agreements and understandings pertaining to the settlement of the Litigation.
M. Notice: 1. Any notice, request or instruction or other document to be given by any
party to this Settlement Agreement to any other party to this Settlement Agreement (other than class notification) shall be in writing and delivered personally or sent by registered or certified
23

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 24 of 26 PageID: 173

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 25 of 26 PageID: 174

Case 3:06-cv-02065-TJB Document 39-2 Filed 10/29/08 Page 26 of 26 PageID: 175

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 1 of 8
CLOSED,MEDIATION−PRIVATE,RULE16,SCHEDO,STAYED
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Trenton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−02065−TJB

BOISSELLE v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/05/2006 Date Terminated: 04/21/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

TRAFFORD BOISSELLE both individuallyl and on behalf of a class others similarly situated

represented by ELMER ROBERT KEACH , III 1040 RIVERFRONT CENTER PO BOX 70 AMSTERDAM, NY 12010 (518) 434−1718 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SETH R. LESSER KLAFTER OLSEN &LESSER, LLP 2 International Place Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 914−934−9200 Email: slesser@klafterolsen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

WILLIAM A. RIBACK WILLIAM RIBACK, LLC 132 HADDON AVENUE HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033 (856) 857−0008 Fax: (856) 857−0028 Email: ribacklaw@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant THE COUNTY OF MERCER

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO LENOX, SOCEY, WILGUS, FORMIDONI, BROWN, GIORDANO &CASEY, LLC 3131 PRINCETON PIKE BUILDING 1B TRENTON, NJ 08648 (609) 896−2000 Email: ggiordano@lenoxlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY OFFICE OF THE MERCER COUNTY COUNSEL MCDADE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 640 SOUTH BROAD STREET

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 2 of 8

PO BOX 8068 TRENTON, NJ 08650−0068 (609) 989−6511 Email: scrowley@mercercounty.org TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
KEVIN C. LARKIN both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Mercer

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ both individually and in his offical capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Mercer

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI both individually and in his official capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Mercer

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL B. GERALD both individually and in his official capacity as Undersheriff of the County of Mercer

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 3 of 8

Defendant JOHN A. KEMLER both individually and in his official capacity as Chief Sheriff's Officer of the County of Mercer
Defendant JOHN J. MCEWAN both individually and in his official capacity as Chief Warrant officer of the County of Mercer
Defendant MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Defendant SHIRLEY TYLER both individually and in her official capacity as Warden of the Department of Corrections of Mercer County
Defendant ROY HENDRICK both Individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of the Departmen of Corrections of Mercer County

represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by GREGORY J. GIORDANO (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SARAH G. CROWLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/13/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/05/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against JOHN A. KEMLER, JOHN J. MCEWAN, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SHIRLEY TYLER, ROY HENDRICK, THE COUNTY OF MERCER, MERCER COUNTY

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 4 of 8

05/05/2006 05/08/2006 06/02/2006 06/05/2006 06/20/2006
06/28/2006
06/30/2006 09/06/2006 09/08/2006
10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/19/2006 10/20/2006

DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, KEVIN C. LARKIN, MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ, DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI &MICHAEL B. GERALD ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 951223.) Jury Demand, filed by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE.(ck ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
CASE REFERRED to Arbitration. (jjq, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by SETH R. LESSER on behalf of TRAFFORD BOISSELLE (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
3 Letter from william riback. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
Summons Issued as to MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, THE COUNTY OF MERCER, &MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF.Days Due − 20. (mailed to counsel) (ck) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS served on 6/7/2006, answer due 6/27/2006; THE COUNTY OF MERCER served on 6/8/2006, answer due 6/28/2006; MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF served on 6/8/2006, answer due 6/28/2006. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by JOHN A. KEMLER, JOHN J. MCEWAN, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SHIRLEY TYLER, ROY HENDRICK, THE COUNTY OF MERCER, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, KEVIN C. LARKIN, MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ, DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI, MICHAEL B. GERALD.(CROWLEY, SARAH) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
6 ORDER Scheduling a rule 16 Conference set for 9/6/2006 2:30 PM in Trenton − Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/30/06. (Attachments: # 1 ADR MEMO)(mm) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/6/2006. (mm) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
7 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 12/13/2006 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Motions to Amended Pleading &for Joinder of Parties due by 1/12/2007; Ret'ble 2/5/07. Motions for class certificaiton due by 3/9/07; Ret'ble 4/2/07. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 9/7/06. (ck ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter# 2 Declaration Fran Rudich# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service Mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Coler by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter# 2 Declaration Alexandra Coler# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service Mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Charles LaDuca by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter# 2 Declaration Charles LaDuca# 3 Text of Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service Mailing)(RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/19/2006)
Set Deadlines as to 9 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Coler, 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich, 10 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Charles LaDuca. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2006 10:00 AM in Trenton − Courtroom 4E before Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ck, ) (Entered: 10/20/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 5 of 8

10/24/2006 10/26/2006
11/01/2006 12/13/2006
12/13/2006
12/14/2006
12/19/2006 12/28/2006 12/28/2006 02/01/2007 03/02/2007 03/09/2007
03/09/2007
07/31/2007 08/02/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007

11 Letter from William Riback. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
12 ORDER granting 8 ; 9 ; &10 Motions for Leave to Appear FRAN RUDICH, ESQ., ALEXANDRA WARREN, ESQ., AND CHARLES LADUCA, ESQ. Pro Hac Vice on behalf of the plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 12/26/06. (ck, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 300, receipt number 305485 received for Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. and Charles LaDuca, Esq. (lk) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
13 Substitution of Attorney − Attorney GREGORY J. GIORDANO and GREGORY J. GIORDANO for JOHN A. KEMLER and JOHN J. MCEWAN added. Attorney SARAH G. CROWLEY terminated.. (GIORDANO, GREGORY) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 12/13/2006. Status Telephone Conference set for 3/1/2007 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiff is to initiate the call. (mm) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE − Document 13 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY submitted by GREGORY GIORDANO, ESQ. on 12/13/06. The DOCKET NUMBER 06−1368 does not match the DOCKET NUMBER 05CV2065 of this case. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only.. (ck, ) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
14 LETTER ORDER confirming certain deadlines: Telephone Conference set for 3/1/2007 11:00 AM. Motions due by 2/23/2007; Ret'ble 3/5/07. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 12/13/06. (ck, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
15 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Alexandra Warren to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
16 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice charles laduca to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/28/2006)
17 LETTER ORDER adjourning the Telephone Conference to 3/22/2007 at 03:30 PM. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 2/1/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
18 LETTER ORDER adjourning the telephone Conference to 3/9/2007 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 3/2/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 3/9/2007. Status Telephone Conference set for 7/31/2007 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Plaintiff is to initiate the call. (mm) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 7/31/2007 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Amended Pleadings due by 5/25/2007. Motions due by 8/24/2007.. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 3/9/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 7/31/2007. (mm) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
20 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation &STAYING CASE for a period of 60 days.. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/1/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
21 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Alexander E. Barnett by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
22 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Nicholas A. Migliaccio by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 08/07/2007)

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 6 of 8

08/08/2007
08/14/2007
08/14/2007 08/14/2007 08/15/2007
08/16/2007 10/22/2007 11/21/2007 01/18/2008 02/26/2008
02/28/2008 02/28/2008

Set Deadlines as to 22 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Nicholas A. Migliaccio, 21 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Alexander E. Barnett. Motion Hearing set for 9/4/2007 10:00 AM in Trenton − Courtroom 4E before Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ck, ) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
23 BRIEF in Opposition re 21 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Alexander E. Barnett, 22 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice − Nicholas A. Migliaccio filed by JOHN A. KEMLER, JOHN J. MCEWAN, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SHIRLEY TYLER, ROY HENDRICK, THE COUNTY OF MERCER, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, KEVIN C. LARKIN, MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ, DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI, MICHAEL B. GERALD. (GIORDANO, GREGORY) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
24 ORDER granting 21 Motion for Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; and granting 22 Motion for Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for pltf.. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 8/14/07. (lk) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III on behalf of all plaintiffs (KEACH, ELMER) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Document 23 Brief in Opposition submitted by Gregory Giordano, Esq. on 8/14/07 did not contain a proper signature. Only Registered Users are permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT WITH A PROPER ELECTRONIC OR SCANNED SIGNATURE BY 8/17/07. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ck, ) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
Pro Hac Vice fee received by Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. &Nicholas A> Migliaccio, Esq.: $ 300, receipt number 359402 (ck, ) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
26 Letter ORDER directing that the next mediation scheduled with former Judge Rosen is on 11/7/07. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 10/19/07. (ck, ) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
27 ORDER continuing stay. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/20/07. (ms) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
28 LETTER ORDER regarding mediation status. Signed by Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 1/18/08. (lk) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
29 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition, WITHDRAWAL of Claim, AMENDED ANSWER to, COUNTERCLAIM against TRAFFORD BOISSELLE by JOHN A. KEMLER, JOHN J. MCEWAN, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SHIRLEY TYLER, ROY HENDRICK, THE COUNTY OF MERCER, MERCER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF, KEVIN C. LARKIN, MICHAEL D. GERASIMOWICZ, DENNIS J. TOBOLSKI, MICHAEL B. GERALD. (GIORDANO, GREGORY) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
30 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to document 29 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition, WITHDRAWAL of Claim, AMENDED ANSWER to, COUNTERCLAIM filed on 2/26/08 by GREGORY J. GIORDANO, ESQ. for Defendants. The body of this document appears to only be Answer to the Counterclaim. However, there has never been a Counterclaim filed by any party in this matter. Counsel needs to review this document, determine what it is really supposed to be,, and if necessary resubmit it properly. This message is for informational purposes and will remain on the docket until otherwise directed by the court. (ms) (Entered: 02/28/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 7 of 8

02/28/2008
02/29/2008 03/03/2008
03/05/2008 04/16/2008 05/07/2008 06/03/2008 07/25/2008
07/25/2008 07/31/2008 08/01/2008 08/07/2008
10/01/2008 10/21/2008 10/27/2008
10/29/2008

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: This pertains to Document 30 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. The pro hac vice fee has not been paid, therefore this attorney will not be added to receive said Notices. (ms) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
Pro Hac Vice fee: for Fran L. Rudich, Esq. $ 150, receipt number 363560 (lk) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
31 SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 6/2/2008. Joinder of Parties due by 6/2/2008. Telephone Conference set for 6/9/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 2/28/09. (lk) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
32 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (RIBACK, WILLIAM) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
33 LETTER ORDER resetting telephone conference for June 10, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/15/08. (ij, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 5/7/2008. (mm) (Entered: 05/07/2008)
34 ORDER extending stay for 45 days and resetting the 6/10/08 conference to 7/25/08 at 3:00pm. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 6/2/2008. (tp ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 7/25/2008. Status Telephone Conference set for 8/8/2008 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
Reset Hearings: Status Telephone Conference set for 8/7/2008 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mm) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
35 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Fran L. Rudich to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 8/1/2008. (mm) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 8/7/2008. It is anticipated that parties will move for preliminary approval settlement by September 15, 2008. (mm) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
36 CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (mmh) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
37 LETTER ORDER extending time to file motion for preliminary approval until 10/23/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 10/20/2008. (mmh) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
38 LETTER ORDER confirming Settlement Conference set for 11/13/2008 09:30 AM in Trenton − Courtroom 6E before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 10/27/2008. (mmh) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
39 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Seth R Lesser In Support of Motion, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Lesser Declaration − Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Claim Form, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Long Form Notice, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit C to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Final Approval Order, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Preliminary Approval Order, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit D to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Summary Notice, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit F to Settlement Agreement − Proposed Plan of Distribution, # 9

Case: 3:06-cv-2065 As of: 07/22/2013 03:03 AM EDT 8 of 8

10/30/2008 11/13/2008 11/20/2008 04/15/2009
04/16/2009
04/20/2009 04/20/2009 04/21/2009 06/11/2009 06/12/2009 12/10/2009 12/16/2009 05/11/2010 07/07/2010 08/02/2010
08/09/2010

Exhibit Exhibit B to Lesser Declaration − Attorney Bios and Resumes, # 10 Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 39 MOTION Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Motion set for 11/13/2008 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. (lk) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Preliminary approval hearing held on 11/13/2008. (CD B08#11.) (mm) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
41 ORDER Preliminarily Approving Settlement. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 11/19/2008. (mmh) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
42 MOTION for Settlement Approval and for Awards of Attorneys Fees and Costs and Incentive Award by TRAFFORD BOISSELLE. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Seth R Lesser in Support of Motion for Final Approval etc, # 2 Exhibit A to Lesser Certification (Fraga Affidavit), # 3 Exhibit B to Lesser Certification (Plan of Distribution), # 4 Exhibit C to Lesser Certification (Byrd claim form), # 5 Brief in Support of Motion for Final Approval etc, # 6 Text of Proposed Order, # 7 Certificate of Service)(LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
Set Deadlines as to 42 MOTION for Settlement Approval and for Awards of Attorneys Fees and Costs and Incentive Award. Motion set for 5/18/2009 before Judge Bongiovanni will be decided on the papers. No appearance required unless notified by the Court. (mmh) (Entered: 04/16/2009)
43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Final settlement approval hearing held on 4/20/2009. (CD #B09 #4.) (mm) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
44 ORDER granting final approval of class action settlement and judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 4/20/2009. (mmh) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
***Civil Case Terminated. (mmh) (Entered: 04/21/2009)
45 STIPULATION of DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. (dd, ) (Entered: 06/12/2009)
46 Letter from Errick L. DOwning. (mmh) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
47 Letter from Gary Rawlings. (mmh) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
48 Letter from Class Counsel re Letter from Mr Rawlings re 47 Letter. (LESSER, SETH) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
49 Letter from Gary Rawlings. (mmh) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
50 LETTER ORDER directing that Counsel wishing to object to the attached Proposed Order must do so by 7/28/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni on 7/6/2010. (mmh) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
51 TEXT ORDER − Status Conference via telephone set for August 9, 2010 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. It shall be plaintiffs counsels responsibility to contact all counsel to set up the conference as well as to initiate the call. Kindly mark your calendar accordingly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.(mm) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni: Telephone Conference held on 8/9/2010. (mm) (Entered: 08/09/2010)