State ex rel. Campagna v. Post Integrations, Inc.

State ex rel. Campagna v. Post Integrations, Inc.

Opinion

 [**1178]  [*278]   The opinion of the court was delivered by

ROTHSTADT, J.A.D.

In this qui tam action, [***2]  we are asked to determine whether a claim against a corporation arising from its alleged failure to pay certain statutory obligations owed to the State relates to taxes that are expressly excluded from the purview of the New Jersey False Claims Act (NJFCA or the Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-1 to -18. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that such obligations are taxes and, therefore, the Law Division properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff, Leonard M. Campagna, the relator, appeals from the Law Division's November 6, 2015 order allowing the Attorney General to appear in support of defendants' motion to dismiss and from the order of the same date dismissing his complaint. The complaint alleged that defendants, Post Integrations, Inc., Ebocom, Inc., and Mary Gerdts, were out-of-state credit card processors who served New Jersey based hotels, and that they violated the NJFCA by making false statements in order to avoid paying New Jersey "assessments, fees, license costs and other charges." In response to plaintiff's complaint, the Attorney General filed a notice of his decision not to intervene in the action and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action [***3]  upon which relief could be granted, R. 4:6-2(e), and for failing to plead a fraud claim with particularity, R. 4:5-8(a). The State sought leave to file a statement of interest and to participate in oral argument in further support of defendants'  [*279]  motion. Judge Michelle Hollar-Gregory allowed the State to participate, over plaintiff's objection, even though Attorney General had declined to intervene in the action.

 [**1179]  After considering the parties' and the State's arguments, Judge Hollar-Gregory dismissed the complaint, concluding that plaintiff's allegations related to false statements that were made to avoid paying taxes and similar liabilities and that the NJFCA, N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-2 (the tax bar), expressly excluded "claims, records, or statements made in connection with state tax laws." The judge rejected plaintiff's contention that his claims were excluded from the tax bar because N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-3(g), which sets forth conduct prohibited under the NJFCA, does not include the word "claim." Relying on DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 874 A.2d 1039 (2005), the judge observed that reading section (g) in isolation as plaintiff argued would "not give sense to the legislation as a whole." Judge Hollar-Gregory also rejected plaintiff's argument that even if the tax bar applied to "claims" such as those [***4]  he asserted, the other fees he alleged defendants avoided were not taxes. The judge disagreed finding that the fees were alternative minimum assessments (AMA) required as a tax on corporate income by the "Corporation Business Tax Act [(CBT), N.J.S.A. 54:10A-1 to -40]."

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.