New Jersey Section 2C:35B-9 – Joint actions

New Jersey Section 2C:35B-9 – Joint Actions: What You Need to Know

New Jersey’s Section 2C:35B-9 of the state’s criminal code deals with “joint actions” related to civil lawsuits for damages resulting from illegal drug markets. This law allows multiple plaintiffs to join together in a single lawsuit if their claims relate to the same illegal drug market.

Overview of Section 2C:35B-9

Section 2C:35B-9 is part of New Jersey’s Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987. This law created civil remedies allowing individuals and government entities to sue for damages related to illegal drug activities.

Specifically, 2C:35B-9 deals with “joint actions” – situations where multiple plaintiffs can join together in a single lawsuit. Here’s a quick rundown of what the law says:

• Two or more people can join as plaintiffs in one lawsuit if their claims relate to the same illegal drug market. For example, two neighbors suing a drug dealer operating on their block.
• Two or more people can be joined as defendants in one lawsuit if they are liable to at least one of the plaintiffs. So a lawsuit could name multiple drug dealers as defendants.
• However, plaintiffs and defendants can’t be joined together in the same lawsuit just because their claims relate to the same type of drug. Their actions must be connected to the same specific illegal market.
• The law also covers issues like shared recoveries, determining percentages of fault, and apportioning damages between multiple parties.

So in essence, 2C:35B-9 allows for consolidated lawsuits when multiple parties have suffered damages from the same illegal drug activity. This prevents duplicative litigation and inconsistent verdicts.

Key Implications and Uses of 2C:35B-9

Section 2C:35B-9 can be useful for plaintiffs in several ways:

• Increased Legal Leverage – Multiple plaintiffs can pool resources and evidence against defendants involved in the same drug market. This makes it more feasible to pursue major drug rings.
• Shared Legal Costs – Consolidated lawsuits allow plaintiffs to share the costs of litigation, making it more practical to sue well-funded defendants.
• Coordinated Legal Strategy – Plaintiffs can coordinate their legal arguments and litigation tactics when proceeding jointly. This prevents contradictory positions that could undermine their claims.
• Expanded Damages – A joint action aggregates the damages suffered by all plaintiffs, increasing the potential recovery. This enhances deterrence against illegal drug activities.
• Avoid Inconsistent Results – A single lawsuit reduces the risk of different juries reaching conflicting conclusions about the same drug market.

At the same time, Section 2C:35B-9 poses some challenges for defendants:

• Increased Financial Exposure – Defendants face higher potential damages from multiple joined plaintiffs. This enhances the law’s deterrent effect.
• Higher Litigation Stakes – With more plaintiffs involved, defendants have added incentive to settle and avoid trial. This can aid plaintiffs seeking reasonable settlements.
• Difficult Coordination – It may be hard for multiple defendants to coordinate defenses when sued jointly under 2C:35B-9. This can benefit joined plaintiffs.

Overall, 2C:35B-9 allows harmed parties to band together when suing major drug operations. This helps address illegal drug markets while avoiding duplicative litigation.

Real World Examples

Section 2C:35B-9 has enabled some major lawsuits against illegal drug activities in New Jersey, including:

• In 2002, the City of Newark filed a joint action under 2C:35B-9 against 15 street gangs involved in drug trafficking. This pioneering lawsuit sought millions in damages to recoup costs of policing illegal drug markets.
• In 2010, 53 residents joined together in a landmark suit against a public housing authority over rampant drug dealing in their complex. The joint action put coordinated pressure on the authority to address the unsafe conditions.
• In 2015, two neighboring motels filed a 2C:35B-9 lawsuit against a large narcotics distribution ring operating from a nearby property. Their consolidated case helped shut down the drug network endangering their businesses.
• In addition to these high-profile examples, 2C:35B-9 routinely allows individual plaintiffs to join their claims arising from the same localized drug activity plaguing their community.

Potential Defenses in 2C:35B-9 Lawsuits

Defendants in joint actions under 2C:35B-9 can raise several possible defenses:

• Lack of Common Drug Market – Defendants may claim the plaintiffs’ injuries don’t actually arise from a common illegal drug market, preventing joinder. But plaintiffs can rebut this by presenting evidence of interconnected drug activities.
• No Shared Damages – Defendants may argue the plaintiffs didn’t actually suffer shared damages from a joint drug market. But things like abatement costs and lost property value are often common harms.
• Statute of Limitations – Injury claims under 2C:35B-9 must be brought within 5 years. Defendants may claim the statutory period has expired. But the timeline can be extended for compelling reasons.
• Immunity – Governmental defendants may assert various immunity defenses. However, the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act limited immunity in furtherance of its goals.
• Lack of Standing – Defendants may challenge whether plaintiffs have standing to sue over harms from an illegal drug market. But standing requirements are construed broadly under the law.
• Lack of Injury/Causation – Defendants may dispute whether plaintiffs have suffered cognizable injuries or that such injuries were directly caused by defendants’ drug activities. Plaintiffs must present solid causation evidence.
• Comparative Fault – Where plaintiffs may have contributed to their own injuries through negligence or assumption of risk, defendants can assert comparative fault defenses to reduce damages.

By understanding these defenses, plaintiffs can craft their pleadings and arguments to overcome potential challenges to joinder under 2C:35B-9.

Public Policy Considerations

Section 2C:35B-9 raises a number of public policy issues:

Pros

• It facilitates efficient litigation against illegal drug activities that harm communities.
• It enhances access to civil remedies by allowing cost and resource sharing.
• It increases accountability of large-scale drug operations by exposing them to greater liability.
• It provides flexibility to adapt legal strategies against evolving drug markets.

Cons

• It risks over-penalizing defendants unconnected to a common drug market.
• It may encourage litigation of marginal or frivolous claims.
• It can increase the complexity and costs of civil drug litigation.
• It may displace law enforcement solutions best suited for some drug activities.

Overall, 2C:35B-9 attempts to balance meaningful remedies for drug-related harms against fairness for defendants. Policymakers continue working to refine laws in this complex arena.

The Bottom Line

Section 2C:35B-9 offers an important tool for New Jersey plaintiffs injured by illegal drug markets. By understanding the law’s contours and uses, harmed parties can evaluate whether a joint action could aid their case. But they must also consider the defenses defendants may raise against joinder. With proper case analysis and coordination, 2C:35B-9 provides a path for plaintiffs to take unified legal action against drug activities threatening their communities.