[brief] (Pa000001).  On March 24, 2022, Defendant [...], (“[...]”) the environmental remediation contractor retained by the [...], filed a motion for summary judgment.  On April 1, 2022, [...], [...]’s engineer that prepared the project plans, filed a motion for summary judgment.  (Pa000030).  Both motions were filed before discovery was exchanged.  Both motions argued that dismissal was warranted because Plaintiffs had not filed an affidavit of merit within 120 days pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.  With respect to [...]’s motion, Plaintiffs opposed, arguing that based upon the allegations that were being asserted against [...], an affidavit of merit was not needed to pursue claims against [...] because Plaintiffs were only pursuing general negligence and trespass claims that did not require expert testimony.  (Pa000073-Pa000083).  On May 27, 2022, the trial court denied both motions in part, and in relevant part, held that Plaintiffs could pursue general negligence and trespass claims against [...].  (Pa000084; 1T Hearing).  Shortly thereafter, on June 29, 2022, [...] served Plaintiffs with a R. 1:4-8 frivolous litigation letter.  (Pa000121).  On July 28, 2023, after the close of --- 1  [...], a party not relevant to this appeal, also filed a motion to dismiss which was denied at this time.  2  There were four hearings with the trial court relevant to this dispute, as follows:  1T Hearing 05/27/2022  2T Hearing 10/20/2023  3T Hearing 02/28/2024  4T Hearing 03/07/2024 discovery, [...] filed a second motion for summary judgment. (Pa000086).  The trial court granted the motion on August 25, 2023.  (Pa000426).  Thereafter, on September 13, 2023, [...] filed a motion for frivolous litigation sanctions, arguing that the Plaintiffs’ litigation against [...] was frivolous on the basis that Plaintiffs had not obtained an expert pertaining to an engineering duty of care.  (Pa000428-Pa-000456).  Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that expert testimony was not necessary, and that Plaintiffs had articulated viable theories of ordinary negligence and trespass.  (Pa000457-Pa000477).  Without oral argument, the trial court granted [...]’s motion with an oral decision on the record on October 20, 2023.  (2T Hearing).  Fees were determined pursuant to a written Statement of Reasons entered by the trial court on December 5, 2023.  (Pa000637).  On November 27, 2023, [...] filed a motion for summary judgment, relying exclusively on inapposite regulatory taking jurisprudence, and argued that there was not a taking.  (Pa000573).  On January 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed opposition and cross-moved for partial summary judgment that the [...] had taken the Plaintiffs’ Property without just compensation and that the compensation for the taking should be determined pursuant to the Eminent Domain Act.  (Pa000639-Pa000868).  Oral argument was conducted on February 28, 2024.  (3T Hearing).  On March 6, 2024, the court granted the [...]’s motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment.  (Pa000869-Pa000879).  On March 26, 2024, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Order for summary judgment in favor of [...], which dismissed Plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claims with prejudice, and the award of frivolous litigation sanctions that were awarded to [...].  (Pa000880).  Oral argument was conducted on May 7, 2024.  (4T Hearing).  The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on May 10, 2024.  (Pa000926).  At this time, all of the Plaintiffs’ claims had been dismissed by the trial court with prejudice. \(^3\)  This appeal followed.  (Pa000928).  **STATEMENT OF FACTS**