UNITED STATES DISTRiCT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AL FALAU CENTER, et cii.,

Plaintiffs,

V. : Civil Action No. 11-2397 (MAS) (LHG)

TOWNS 11 IP OF BR1DGEWATER, et al., MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’ Township of Bridgewater’s

(“Ton nship” or “Defendant”) Motion for Stay Pending Appeal l)UrSUant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 7(b) and 62. (Def.’s Mot,, ECF No. 98.) Plaintiff Al Falah Center

(“Plaintiff” or “Al Falah”) filed Opposition, (Ph’s Opp’n, ECF No. 105.) Defendant filed a

Reply. (Def’s Reply, ECF No. 106.) The Court has carefully considered the Parties’ submissions

and decided the matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1

On September 30, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction

enjoining Defendant from enforcing Ordinance 11—03 against Plaintiff, directing Defendant to

resume consideration of Plaintiff’s January 6, 2011 Site Plan Application (as amended) without

consideration of Ordinance 11—03, and not requiring Plaintiff to post bond pursuant to Rule 65(c)

(“September 30 Order’). (ECF No. 94.) Nearly one month later, Defendant 6led its motion to

The Deflndants in the instant matter include the Township of Bridgewater, the Township of

Bridgewater Planning Board, and the Township Council of the Township of Bridgewater.

(Compl.

2 Plaintiffs also include Tarek Abdelkader, Yasser Abdelkader, Zahid Chughtai, Babar Farooqi,

Nabeela Farooqi, Ayesha Khan, Omar Mohammedi, Amina Mohammedi, and Sara Wallis, all of

whom engage in the practices of the Islamic faith. (Compl. J 21.)
stay the preliminary injunction pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit, contending that staying the preliminary injunction and maintaining the status quo is

appropriate in light of the significant legal questions arising out of the Court’s September 30

Order. (Def.’s Mot. 2.)

“[T]he standard for obtaining a stay pending appeal is essentially the same as that for

obtaining a preliminary injunction.. . . To qualify for preliminary injunctive relief, a party must

demonstrate ‘(1) a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if

the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary reliefwill not result in even greater harm to

the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Conestoga Wood Spec.

Coip. v. Secv of US. Dep’t ofHealth & Human Sen’s., No. 13-1 144, 2013 WL 1277419, at *1

(3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2013) (quoting Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir.

2004)).

The Court concludes that Defendant has not established the four elements necessary to

stay its September 30 Order pending Defendant’s appeal. Specifically, the Court finds that

Defendant has not sufficiently established that it has a likelihood of success on the merits of its

appeal. In its motion, Defendant contends that it has a likelihood of success on appeal because

the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction and that it

erred when it relied on County Concrete Corp. v. Town ofRoxbury, 442 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006)

to determine that Plaintiff’s claims were ripe for adjudication. (Def.’s Mot. 1-1 1.) In determining

that Plaintiff’s claims were ripe, the Court adhered to the prior decision of the Hon. Joel A.

Pisano. U.S.D.J., denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and concluding that Plaintiff’s claims

were ripe under County Concrete. (Mem. Op., ECF No. 95, at 10-11.) In addition, the Court

noted, in regard to Judge Pisano’s previous decision, that “[u]nder the law of the case doctrine,

2
once an issue is decided, it will not be relitigated in the same case, except in unusual

circumstances.” (Id. at 11 n.6) (quoting Hayrnan v. Cash Register Co. v. Sarokin, 669 F.2d 162,

165 (3d Cir. 1982)).

Defendant’s present motion presents neither evidence nor recent case law to cast doubt

on the Court’s or Judge Pisano’s decisions. The Court resolved the issue of ripeness in favor of

Plaintiff, and Defendant, through its present motion, is implicitly asking the Court to revisit its

finding. The Court is not convinced by Defendant’s arguments and, in addition, finds that

Defendant has not demonstrated “unusual circumstances” for the Court to depart from the law of

the case doctrine. Based on the foregoing, and other good cause shown,

IT IS, on this th day of January, 2014, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Stay

Pending Appeal is DENIED.

MICHAEL A. SHIEØ

UNiTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3