Toms River Facing Up To $600K Fine In 2 North Dover Zoning Lawsuits

TOMS RIVER, NJ — A federal judge has recommended a fine of up to $600,000 be assessed to Toms River Township over ongoing delays in a pair of 2021 lawsuits over the township zoning board's rejection of applications for two Orthodox Jewish shuls.

In a 14-page ruling issued Oct. 30, U.S. Magistrate Judge Justin T. Quinn ordered a fine of $20,000 per day for up to 30 days in the federal lawsuits filed by Bais Brucha and Khal Anshei Tallymawr over what he called prolonged delays by Toms River in turning over information from laptops and cellphones as part of the discovery process.

Subscribe

In addition, Quinn denied a request by the attorneys representing Toms River, the firm of Methfessel and Werbel of Edison, to withdraw as the town's legal representation.

The township had 14 days from the time it received the order to file objections, according to Quinn's decision.

Bais Brucha and Khal Anshei Tallymawr filed the federal lawsuits in February 2021 over the zoning denials while Toms River was in the midst of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over the town's zoning changes that federal officials said violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

The Justice Department investigated Toms River after the Chabad Jewish Center's 2016 lawsuit over the Zoning Board of Adjustment's 2015 denial of the center's request to hold prayer services at Rabbi Moshe Gourarie's home.

The lawsuits cited increasing anti-Semitism in Toms River as the cause for the denials.

Federal judges in the Khal Anshei Tallymawr and Bais Brucha lawsuits issued partial dismissals after Toms River settled with the Justice Department, but in both cases the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaints, which happened in early 2023, according to court records.

Subpoenas issued in 2023 sought copies of emails, messages sent by text or any social media application and full social media histories that reference the Orthodox Jewish community for each of 19 Toms River officials.

Since then, the township has dragged its feet in providing documents and information in the lawsuit in spite of court orders telling the township to provide the information, Quinn said in his order.

The delays led to Quinn ordering Toms River to pay the attorneys' fees as a punishment for not turning over the documents in an October 2025 ruling.

A year later, the township still has not fulfilled the discovery requests, Quinn said.

At a July 2026 hearing, Quinn ordered the town to comply, but in his Oct. 30 hearing said that since then, "Numerous Township-issued devices cannot be located, and in many instances the Township maintained no records concerning when those devices were issued, returned, or their present location."

"Other devices either have been wiped clean or subjected to a factory reset. Still others remain inaccessible because of passwords, encryption, or recovery-key issues. Most troubling, several devices remain unsearched because the Township has simply refused to authorize the forensic work and associated expense necessary to access them," he wrote.

"These are not merely technical impediments beyond (Toms River's) control," Quinn wrote. The town was "obligated to preserve relevant ESI and were later ordered to collect and produce it ... Yet, despite repeated Orders, extensions, prior sanctions, and additional opportunities to comply, discovery remains incomplete and substantial portions of the relevant ESI are now lost, wiped, reset, inaccessible, or unsearched."

"Continued noncompliance has materially delayed these already lengthy proceedings and prevented the parties and the Court from moving beyond discovery," Quinn wrote in recommending the fines to force Toms River to comply.

In denying the request by Methfessel and Werbel to withdraw as Toms River's attorneys — the firm's second request to do so — Quinn said he could not allow it because it would further delay the already long-delayed case.

"The Court does not discount the circumstances underlying defense counsel's renewed request to withdraw—a point the undersigned made explicit during the July oral argument. Counsel represents that Defendants discharged the firm 'approximately four months ago' ... and the firm has received 'no assurances . . . that [it] will be paid voluntarily for . . . legal services,' " Quinn wrote. He noted that the law firms said its relationship with Toms River had become " 'even more dysfunctional and adversarial' and that continued representation has become 'unreasonably difficult.' "

"Given the posture of these matters, the unresolved discovery issues, the failure to identify substitute counsel, and the substantial disruption and prejudice that withdrawal would cause, the Court concludes that continued representation is warranted notwithstanding Defendants' discharge of counsel," Quinn wrote.