2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-31-2011

Daniel Gallagher v. Atlantic City Board of Ed

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1808

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Daniel Gallagher v. Atlantic City Board of Ed" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1561.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1561
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 10-1808

_____________

DANIEL GALLAGHER, 

 Appellant

 

v.

ATLANTIC CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; THE BRIGANTINE 

REPRESENTATIVE; RASHUN STEWART, 

in his official capacity as President of the Atlantic City Board of Education; THE 

VENTNOR REPRESENTATIVE; 

THE MARGATE REPRESENTATIVE, in their official capacities as representatives of 

certain school boards; CHRISTOPHER STORCELLA; DANIEL CAMPBELL; 

THERESA KELLY; THOMAS GABRIEL; JOAN GLICK

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(Civ. No. 08-cv-03262)

District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler

_____________

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a),

March 21, 2011

BEFORE: FUENTES, SMITH and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: March 31, 2011)

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________
2

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Daniel Gallagher, appeals the District Court's decision to grant a 

motion for summary judgment filed by appellee Rashun Stewart and a motion for 

summary judgment filed by a group of appellees comprising the Atlantic City School 

Board and several of its representatives (collectively "the School Board"). We will 

affirm both rulings. 

I.

We write solely for the benefit of the parties and therefore assume their familiarity 

with the facts of this case, as set forth in detail in the District Court's opinions. See

Gallagher v. Atl. City Bd. of Educ., No. 08-3262, 2010 WL 572160 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 

2010) ("Gallagher III"). See also Gallagher v. Atl. City Bd. of Educ., No. 08-3262, slip 

op. (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2009) ("Gallagher II"); Gallagher v. Atl. City Bd. of Educ., No. 08-

3262, 2009 WL 520952 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009) ("Gallagher I").

Gallagher's appeal restates the arguments he presented to the District Court. 

Appealing the District Court's ruling granting Stewart's motion for summary judgment, 

he argues that Stewart can be liable for having influence over members of the School 

Board who decided to vote against Gallagher for the position of Board Solicitor even 

though Stewart was not president of the School Board when the vote took place. This 

argument is no more persuasive now than it was before the District Court. We reject it 

for the reasons set forth in the District Court's memorandum. See Gallagher II, slip op. at 

5 ("Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that Defendant Stewart's act of 

appointing supporters to committee positions was improper in any way.").
3

Appealing from the School Board's motion for summary judgment, Gallagher 

argues that it was not an unwaivable conflict of interest to serve as counsel to a board 

member suing the Atlantic City School Board while seeking a position as the Board's 

solicitor. The District Court—thoroughly familiar with New Jersey's rules of 

professional conduct—rejected this argument. We do, too. See Gallagher III, 2010 WL 

572160, at *3 ("There is no doubt here that on one hand Plaintiff sought to advocate 

against the Board, and on the other he sought to represent it. Even though Plaintiff 

maintains that his suit was against some subset of the Board, that position is untenable."). 

The District Court gave Gallagher's claims thoughtful and careful consideration in 

several written opinions. We have nothing to add to its analysis and therefore affirm its 

rulings for the reasons set forth in the record.