Category Archives: Litigation procedure

A Significant Court Ruling: A Prolific OPRA Requestor is Not Allowed to Make OPRA Requests

Leave a reply

Over the past several years, an organization named the African American Data and Research Institute (AADARI) has been a frequent OPRA requestor and litigant. I don’t know how many requests AARDI has made, but it often files challenges to OPRA denials in the GRC and the courts. About half of the cases decided by the GRC in recent have listed as the complainant, “Rotimi Owoh, Esq. (o/b/o African American Data & Research Institute).” And the AADARI, always represented by Mr. Owoh, has litigated a number of Appellate Division and Supreme Court OPRA cases.

However, the Appellate Division recently held that the AADARI does not have the legal capacity to make OPRA requests or to authorize an attorney to act on its behalf, either to make OPRA requests or to file litigation. AADARI v. Hitchner, et al.

This case involved various OPRA and common law requests made by Attorney Owoh on behalf of AADARI. However, the record before the Appellate Division showed that AADARI is a corporation whose sole member is Owoh’s son, O.S., who suffers from a mental illness and is mentally incompetent. The court concluded the corporation did not have the legal ability to take any of the actions involved in the OPRA matters. The corporation can only take actions through its members, but AADARI’s only member, O.S., is not able to do so because of mental incompetence; according to the court, he “does not possess the capacity to retain Owoh, request the records, or decide to file suit.”

For the same reason, the court said, the corporation lacks the legal ability to file an OPRA court action. The entity cannot satisfy the court rule that its action be supported by the required verified complaint –no one in the corporation could attest to the truth of the claims. As a result, the Appellate Division dismissed the complaints.

It’s not clear what effect this ruling will have on future OPRA litigation. The AADARI could, of course, reorganize with new members to remedy the problem discussed above. But for now, this frequent requestor is precluded from making OPRA requests or litigating over prior denials of its purported requests.

New Appellate Division Opinion Addresses An Important Issue Regarding the Statute of Limitations for OPRA Actions

Leave a reply

In Dalnoky v. Pinelands Reg. School Dist., the court dealt with an OPRA issue of first impression: whether a requestor may refile his OPRA request, after the custodian denied the request and the requestor did not file a court complaint challenging this denial within the 45-day statute of limitations. The Appellate Division concluded that a requestor may not avoid the statute of limitations by filing the same OPRA request at a later date.

In this case, the custodian denied the OPRA request on October 23, 2020. The requestor subsequently filed the same OPRA request several other times during 2021 and 2022. He filed a lawsuit against the school district on December 6, 2021, which raised several claims, including a challenge to the denial of his OPRA requests.

The Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of the OPRA claim, for failure to file it with the trial court until well beyond the 45-day statute of limitations applicable to OPRA matters: the custodian denied the request in October 2020, and the complaint was filed in December 2021.

The requestor argued that the complaint was timely because it concerned the OPRA request he had made to the district in November 2021. But the court determined that this request was the same as the one that the district had denied in October 2020, which the requestor had not timely challenged. The court observed that it would “frustrate the purpose” of OPRA’s statute of limitations to “allow plaintiff to start a new forty-five-day period by simply making an identical request….”

I think the court’s determination is inarguably correct; indeed, there would effectively be no statute of limitations for OPRA complaints if appellant’s argument were accepted. However, there’s at least one trial court ruling that reached the opposite conclusion.

It’s unfortunate the Appellate Division’s opinion in Dalnoky is not precedential, to preclude other requestors from refiling their requests in an effort to avoid compliance with the statute of limitations for OPRA complaints.

An Important Reminder from the Appellate Division: OPRA Complaints must be Verified, and Supported by Affidavit Based On Personal Knowledge

Leave a reply

It’s well settled that an OPRA complaint must be filed as a summary action, which requires filing an order to show cause, with a verified complaint supported by an affidavit that states the facts based on personal knowledge. However, I’ve handled cases where the requestor’s attorney overlooks this basic requirement. The failure to follow the summary action procedures requires dismissal of the complaint.

The Appellate Division recently issued an unpublished opinion confirming this principle. It said that the summary action procedures “may not be bypassed by [OPRA] plaintiffs,” and non-compliance with these rules renders the complaint a “nullity.” African American Data and Research Inst. v. Hitchner.

In this case, the trial judge determined that the OPRA plaintiff’s failure to verify the complaint, and to submit a supporting affidavit, did not matter, and issued a ruling requiring disclosure of some of the requested documents. The Appellate Division reversed, and dismissed the complaint. The court emphasized that the failures to verify the complaint and submit an affidavit in an OPRA suit are “fatal procedural deficiencies.”