[brief] Finally, after discovery closed, Plaintiffs argued, for the first time, that [...] needed to obtain Plaintiffs’ consent to prepare preliminary site plans for the redevelopment project.  This baseless argument was made without any supporting evidence and actually would require expert testimony.  Plaintiffs, however, never obtained an Affidavit of Merit, and the professional negligence claims were already dismissed.  In fact, the evidence showed that [...], not [...], was responsible for obtaining Plaintiffs’ consent with respect to the redevelopment project. (Pa000215 at 32:9-12).  Plaintiffs’ continued efforts to keep [...] in the case with its “need for consent” argument can only be interpreted as bad faith, frivolous litigation which resulted in unnecessary, but significant attorney’s fees and costs.  The issue of whether a civil engineer needs the consent of neighboring properties when drafting a preliminary site plan is not common knowledge, no matter how Plaintiffs try to justify it.  In their opposing papers, Plaintiffs wrongly and unfairly characterize [...]’s argument on this topic, claiming that [...] believes an engineer can never be liable for negligence under the common knowledge exception.  This is untrue.  There may be situations in which a civil engineer does something wrong and in which no expert testimony is required to establish a deviation from the standard of care.  [...] never claimed otherwise.  However, in this case, the standard of care as it relates to the preparation of preliminary site plans for this redevelopment project, and the issue of whether [...] needed Plaintiffs’ consent when it drafted the preliminary site plans, are simply not issues of common knowledge.  The average layperson does not know the duties and responsibilities of a site civil engineer in the context of preparing preliminary site plans.  The average layperson does not know who, in the course of a large redevelopment project, is required to inform property owners of proposed improvements to their properties.  These are issues that a civil engineer expert must speak to, and Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain one in disregard of the Affidavit of Merit statute is simply another example of the frivolous manner in which they maintained this suit against [...].  The Affidavit of Merit statute was enacted to protect professionals from baseless claims and weed out frivolous lawsuits early in litigation – not after enduring expensive discovery in a multi-party lawsuit, and requiring two motions for summary judgment.  As Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge, even a claim brought in good faith can later become frivolous.  See LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (2009).  In this matter, Plaintiffs and their attorney knew or should have known before filing the Complaint that a claim against [...] had no merit.  However, it became more evident that the lawsuit against [...] was frivolous upon Plaintiffs’ receipt of the safe harbor letter, which noted that the site plans had been modified as per Plaintiffs’ request and before [...]’s proposed improvements to the Property could take place, and that [...] had nothing to do with any of the remediation efforts giving rise to Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.  This was the point in the litigation where Plaintiffs should have dismissed [...] from the lawsuit or, at the absolute very least, made some sort of attempt to extract further discovery from [...] that might have supported their trespass claim.  Rather than acknowledge the shortcomings in the prosecution of their claims against [...], Plaintiffs instead continue, even on this appeal, to rehash the same bad faith arguments, needlessly prolonging this matter even further, resulting in [...] continuing to incur unnecessary litigation costs.  POINT II