Motion to Dismiss in Bohn Theodore Vs Verizon Communicatio Ns, Inc.| Trellis.Law

On September 04, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Theodore Bohn, and Jane Does 1 - 10, John Does 1 - 30, Verizon Communications, Inc., X, Y And Z, for Tort-Other in the District Court of Essex County.

Preview
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

THEODORE BOHN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF ESSEX, LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: ESX-L-005694-23
V.

VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC., JOHN
DOES 1-30, JANE DOES 1-10, X, Y, Civil Action
AND Z,
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants.

TO Theodore Bohn
90 Montgomery Street
Bloomfield, NJ 07003

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 19, 2024, or as soon thereafter as counsel may

be heard, counsel for Defendant Verizon New Jersey Inc. (“Verizon”) will move before the

Honorable Keith E. Lynott, Superior Court of New Jersey, Historic Courthouse, Dr. Martin Luther

King, Jr. Blvd., 3rd Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102, to dismiss the Complaint of pro se Plaintiff

Theodore Bohn for failure to state a claim under Rule 4:6-2(e).

PLEASE TAKE FUTHER NOTICE that in support of their motion, Verizon will rely

upon its Memorandum of Law and the Certification of Reynold Lambert, with Exhibits.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE Verizon hereby requests oral argument on this

motion if opposition is filed. A proposed form of Order is attached.

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

Dated: December 11, 2023 By: /s/ Reynold Lambert
Reynold Lambert
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

THEODORE BOHN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF ESSEX, LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: ESX-L-005694-23
Vv.

VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC., JOHN
DOES 1-30, JANE DOES 1-10, X, Y, Civil Action
AND Z,
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendants.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court on motion by Lowenstein Sandler LLP,

counsel for Defendant Verizon New Jersey Inc. (“Verizon”), and the Court having considered all

papers filed, and all arguments made by all parties in connection with this motion; and good cause

having been shown;

IT IS on this day of January 2024,

ORDERED that Verizon’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State

a Claim is hereby GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against Verizon are dismissed with

prejudice; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order shall be deemed effectuated

once electronically filed by the Court through eCourts.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Dated:

HON. KEITH E. LYNOTT, J.S.C.

Opposed

Unopposed
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pglof13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

THEODORE BOHN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF ESSEX, LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: ESX-L-005694-23
Vv.

VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC., JOHN
DOES 1-30, JANE DOES 1-10, X, Y, Civil Action
AND Z,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg2of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES il

INTRODUCTION

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A The Complaint’s Conclusory Allegations of Wiretapping

B Plaintiff's Prior Wiretapping Conspiracy Theories

LEGAL STANDARD...

ARGUMENT

CONCLUSION

-i-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg3o0f13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Beatty v. Cahill,
No. A-3560-04, 2006 WL 2805450 (N.J. App. Div. Oct. 3, 2006) ceeeceseeseeeseeeeeeeeseeeeeeeseeateneee

Berger v. Frazier,
No. A-1852-15T1, 2018 WL 3402115 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 13, 2018). seeeeeeeeeeeee 6,7

Bohn v. Wolf,
No. 2:20-cv-10377 (D.N.J. May 14, 2021) seeesesceseesececcseesecssesecesessesseeseceessecsecssseeeeeeeeesseeaeeeaseeeeee

Darakjian v. Hanna,
366 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2004) cesseceseeseceseeeeescescesecessseesecssseeceeessesseesscaesseesesssseasensseeentenscal

Delbridge v. Office of Pub. Defender.
238 N.J. Super. 288 (Law Div. 1989) seeeeeeceseesecsceeeeseeseesecessseesecssseceseseeseeasceesseesesseeesenesseeneenee

Donato v. Moldow,
374 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 2005) cesseceseeseceseeeeescescesecessseesecssseeceeessesseesscaesseesesssseasensseeentenscal

Glass v. Suburban Restoration Co., Inc.
317 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 1998) cesceseeseesecsseeeescescesecescsecsecssseeceeessesseessceesseesesseseasensseeeaeensen

Kinsella v. Welch,
362 N.J. Super. 143 (App. Div. 2003) cesseceseeseceseeeeescescesecessseesecssseeceeessesseesscaesseesesssseasensseeentenscal

L.C. v. Middlesex Cnty. Prosecutor's Off.
No. A-3654-18, 2021 WL 1327169 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 9, 2021) eeeseeeseeseeeeeeeseenee

Marrero v. Twp. of N. Bergen,
No. A-1644-14T3, 2016 WL 4046740 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 29, 2016). seeeeeeeseeseeeeees

McFarlane v. S. Jersey Fam. Med. Centers, Inc.
No. A-0380-19, 2021 WL 3853056 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 30, 2021) seeeeeeeeseeseeeeeeeees

McMullin v. Casaburi,
No. A-3411-16T3, 2018 WL 3673256 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 3, 2018) seeeeeeeseeseeeeeee

Nostrame v. Santiago,
213 N.J. 109 (2013) cescesceseesecseeeeseeseeaecsesscesecsacsecsseasesceseceesseesecsssseceusescessessceesseesesesseaseesseeeaeenes

Nostrame v. Santiago,
420 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2011), aff'd, 213 N.J. 109 (2013) ceeseeseeseesesseeseeseseeeeeessesseeneeeess

-ii-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg4of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Partovi v. Felician Coll.,
No. A-1961-09, 2011 WL 867275 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 15, 2011) 5,7

Reliable Transportation, Inc. v. Trader Joe's Co.,
No. A-4312-18T1, 2020 WL 4279789 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 27, 2020).

Rivas v. Homecoming Financials Network, Inc.
No. A-2400-14T4, 2016 WL 3582072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 5, 2016)

Scheidt v. DRS Techs., Inc.,
424 N.J. Super. 188 (App. Div. 2012) 5, 6,7

Small v. State,
No. A-4113-13T4, 2015 WL 1057840 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 12, 2015)

Teamsters Loc. 97 v. New Jerse >
434 N.J. Super. 393 (App. Div. 2014) 3,5

STATUTES

N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3(a)

N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24

RULES

N.J. Ct. R. 4:6-2(e). 1,6

-lii-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg5of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Defendant Verizon New Jersey Inc. (“Verizon”)! respectfully submits this memorandum

of law in supports of its motion to dismiss the Complaint (the “Complaint”) of pro se Plaintiff

Theodore Bohn (‘Plaintiff’) for failure to state a claim under Rule 4:6-2(e).

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has a history of alleging conspiracy theories of persons trying to wiretap his

communications and steal work-related files. Two years ago, Plaintiff claimed that the Department

of Homeland Security was the culprit. Plaintiff, however, voluntarily dismissed that case before

the court could decide a motion to dismiss. Now, Plaintiff has taken aim at Verizon, advancing

conclusory allegations that it has been wiretapping his communications and burglarizing his work

files. The Complaint, however, does not allege facts that, taken as true, would support those

conclusions. Under settled law, a complaint must plead facts, not conclusions, in order to pass

muster. The Complaint fails to do so here. All it pleads is suspicion and paranoia. Therefore, the

Court should dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 4:6-2(e).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Complaint’s Conclusory Allegations of Wiretapping”

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff lives and works on the second floor of a multi-unit

apartment building located in Bloomfield, New Jersey. (Compl. {fj 2, 10.) In September 2022,

Plaintiff allegedly found a “Verizon service box” in the basement of the building. (Id. § 10.)

Plaintiff himself was not a Verizon customer. (Ibid.) At some unidentified point thereafter,

Plaintiff allegedly saw unidentified individuals purportedly acting on “behalf of Verizon” climb a

' By Stipulation and Order entered on November 27, 2023, Verizon New Jersey Inc. was
substituted as the proper defendant in this matter.
> For purposes of this motion only, Verizon assumes the truth of the Complaint’s well-pleaded
factual allegations, as required. For the avoidance of doubt, Verizon denies any and all allegations
of wrongdoing, and reserves all rights, claims, defenses, and remedies against Plaintiff.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg6o0f13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

“pole across the street from” the building. (Id. § 12.) Around the same time, Plaintiff allegedly

saw someone else notice him and drive around the block (ibid.), though the Complaint does not

allege that this person worked for Verizon (id. {J 5, 12).

Taking a page from a spy thriller, the Complaint goes on to conclude that Verizon “went

up the pole to the junction box across the street to disconnect the illegal connections/transmitters

which Verizon workers had installed in order to wiretap plaintiffs phone (including privileged

communications), monitor plaintiffs emails, text messages, internet usage, gain access to

plaintiff's computer to delete work-product, and to disable plaintiff's security system in order to

gain access to plaintiffs home and law office, and then to burglarize voluminous quantities of

evidence related to the underlying civil conspiracy.” (Id. § 13.) The Complaint does not plead a

single fact that supports any of these sweeping conclusions.

Based on unsupported paranoia, the Complaint pleads two causes of action. First, the

Complaint advances the conclusion that Verizon violated the New Jersey Wiretapping and

Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the “Wiretapping Act”) by “engag[ing] in the unlawful

wiretapping of plaintiff's personal and professional communications, including, but not limited to,

privileged communications, as well as communications related to interdiction of the underlying

civil conspiracy responsible for the complained of activity.” (Id. § 15.) Second, the Complaint

advances the conclusion that Verizon invaded Plaintiff's privacy by “unlawful[ly] intercept[ing]”

his “telephonic and electronic communications, monitoring plaintiffs internet usage, [and]

accessing plaintiff's computer for the purpose of interfering with plaintiff's work-product.” (Id. J

19.) The Complaint further alleges—again in conclusory fashion—that Verizon “disabl[ed]

plaintiff's security system for the purpose of gaining access to plaintiff's home/office” and

-2-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg7of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

“burglarize[ed] plaintiff's home/office of evidence pertaining to the underlying conspiracy.” (Id.

419.) Once again, the Complaint does not plead any facts that support these conclusions.

B Plaintiff's Prior Wiretapping Conspiracy Theories

This is not the first time Plaintiff
has filed a lawsuit alleging conspiracy theories of persons

wiretapping his communications and burglarizing his work files. In June 2020, Plaintiff sued the

United States Department of Homeland Security alleging that “[flor more than fifteen years

antedating the filing of this action, plaintiff has been victimized on an almost daily basis by acts

which defy comparison or precedent.” (Certification of Reynold Lambert (“Lambert Cert.”) J 2,

Ex. A § 22, Second Amended Complaint, Bohn v. Wolf, No. 2:20-cv-10377 (D.N.J. May 14,

2021).)> According to the complaint, Plaintiff had been “kept under relentless surveillance for

more than 15 years.” (Id. 42, Ex. A¥ 9.)

In that case, Plaintiff alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy of an “international nature”

involving a large cast of characters—from government and law enforcement officials in the United

States, Germany, and the Czech Republic, to gang members and “civilian confederates”—all of

whom were allegedly out to get Plaintiff. (Id. § 2, Ex. A {fj 10, 46-77.) Plaintiff alleged that the

United States Government “worked in concert with Teamsters, motorcycle gang members, and

errant members of local law enforcement.” (Id. § 2, Ex. A § 13.) “[FJor more than fifteen years,”

Plaintiff alleged, the United States Government “engaged in warrantless wiretapping” and used

certain technology to break into his computer—all to “delet[e] [his] briefs/memoranda” and

“interfer[e] with [his] law practice.” (Id. 42, Ex. A J 14.) Plaintiff further alleged that the United

States Government “remotely inserted text into documents drafted by plaintiff — making it

necessary for plaintiff to study every document carefully prior to filing 2. 3 66 tampered with plaintiffs

3 The Court may consider pleadings from other cases on a motion to dismiss, as they are “matters
of public record.” Teamsters Loc. 97 v. New Jersey, 434 N.J. Super. 393, 414 (App. Div. 2014).

3-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg8of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

electronic notifications of court filings in both New York and New Jersey State courts”; “had

plaintiffs cellular phone bills sent electronically to an email address that was not plaintiffs”;

“interfered with and disrupted judicial proceedings such as oral argument and depositions through

the repeated use of fire alarms”; and “improperly influenced judges with false information about

plaintiff
and through the transfer of cases.” (Id. § 2, Ex. A § 14, 24.) When Plaintiff travelled to

Europe, Plaintiff alleged that the United States Government used its influence to compel foreign

governments and law enforcement to follow and harass him, steal his property, and break into his

hotel room. (Id. 2, Ex. A §j 46-77.) According to the complaint, “[t]here are literally many

hundreds of incidents which could only have occurred if civilian confederates were confident that

they enjoyed the protection of law enforcement” (id. § 2, Ex. A J 16), and “there ha[d] not been a

week since at least 2002 when there has not been at least one serious incident” (id. 4] 2, Ex. A J

17).
In response to the complaint, the United States Attorney’s Office filed a motion to dismiss

for failure to state a claim. In October 2021, before the court could decide that motion, Plaintiff

agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case due to medical issues. (Id. 3, 4, Exs. B, C.)

After claiming unsuccessfully that the United States Government was wiretapping and

stealing his communications, Plaintiff now speculates that it must have been Verizon. But the

Complaint pleads no facts to substantiate any of those claims. Accordingly, it should be dismissed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“New Jersey is a ‘fact’ rather than a ‘notice’ pleading jurisdiction, which means that a

plaintiff must allege facts to support his or her claim rather than merely reciting the elements of a

cause of action.” Nostrame v. Santiago, 420 N.J. Super. 427, 436 (App. Div. 2011), aff'd, 213 N.J.

109 (2013) (emphasis added). “[T]he essential facts supporting plaintiff's cause of action must be

-4-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pg9of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

presented in order for the claim to survive; conclusory allegations are insufficient in that regard.”

Ss cheidt v. DRS Techs., Inc., 424 N.J. Super. 188, 193 (App. Div. 2012) (emphases added).

“Tt has long been established that pleadings reciting mere conclusions without facts and

reliance on subsequent discovery do not justify a lawsuit.” Glass v. Suburban Restoration Co.

Inc., 317 N.J. Super. 574, 582 (App. Div. 1998). Consequently, “[c]omplaints cannot survive a

motion to dismiss where the claims are conclusory or vague and unsupported by particular overt

acts.” Partovi v. Felician Coll., No. A-1961-09, 2011 WL 867275, at *5 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 15,

2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Delbridge v. Office of Pub. Defender, 238 N.J. Super. 288,

314 (Law Div. 1989)). Nor can a plaintiff avoid dismissal by speculating that discovery will elicit

facts that may support a claim. See Glass, 317 N.J. Super. at 582. As such, “[a] motion to dismiss

a complaint for failure to state a claim may not be denied based on the possibility that discovery

may establish the requisite claim; rather, the legal requisites for plaintiffs’ claim must be apparent

from the complaint itself.” Teamsters Loc. 97, 434 N.J. Super. at 413 (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted); see Beatty v. Cahill, No. A-3560-04, 2006 WL 2805450, at *3 (N.J. App.

Div. Oct. 3, 2006) (same).

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff's Complaint does not even come close to meeting the basic admissibility standards

applicable in New Jersey. To establish a claim for violation of the Wiretapping Act, a plaintiff

must plead facts demonstrating that the defendant “purposely intercept[ed], endeavor[ed] to

intercept[ed], or procur[ed] any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire,

electronic or oral communication[.]” N.J.S.A.2A:156A-3(a); see N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 (imposing

civil liability for violating the Wiretapping Act). And to establish claim for of invasion of privacy,

4 Pursuant to Rule 1:36-3, copies of unpublished opinions cited herein are attached to the Lambert
Certification as Exhibit D.

5.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg10of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

a plaintiff must plead facts that demonstrate: (1) an intentional intrusion; (2) into the solitude,

seclusion, or private affairs of another; (3) that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. See

Ki insella v. Welch, 362 N.J. Super. 143, 156 (App. Div. 2003).

The Complaint here advances conclusions that Verizon violated the Wiretapping Act and

invaded Plaintiffs privacy by “unlawfully wiretapping” and “unlawful[ly] intercept[ing]”

communications, “disabl[ing] [his] security system,” and “burglariz[ing]” his apartment to obtain

“evidence pertaining to the underlying conspiracy”; and also that Verizon allegedly installed

“illegal connections/transmitters” on a utility pole across the street from Plaintiff's apartment.

(Compl. ff 13, 15-19.) The Complaint, however, does not plead a single fact that, taken as true,

even suggests (much less establishes) that Verizon did any of those things.

At the outset, all of the Complaint’s conclusory allegations must be disregarded for

purposes of this motion, as noted above. See Berger v. Frazier, No. A-1852-15T1, 2018 WL

3402115, at *4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 13, 2018) (“Under Rule 4:6-2(e), we are required

to accept as true facts that are alleged, but not conclusory allegations.”) (citing Scheidt, 424 N.J.

Super. at 193); see, e.g., Scheidt, 424 N.J. Super. at 201 (“Plaintiff
has claimed that the Board was

under the control of Newman. However, that bare allegation, unsupported by fact, is

insufficient.”); Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475, 501 (App. Div. 2005) (“The conclusory

allegation that Moldow published the defamatory statements with actual malice is not sufficient to

withstand a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.”); Darakjian v. Hanna, 366 N.J. Super. 238, 250

(App. Div. 2004) (affirming dismissal because “single conclusory assertion” concerning the

defendant’s knowledge “does not pass muster”); Berger, 2018 WL 3402115, at *4 (“We reject

plaintiff's contention that we are required to accept as true his allegation that Merck can

‘practicably’ estimate the Tax. That is a conclusion that he has not supported factually.”); Reliable

-6-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg1lof13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Transportation, Inc. v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. A-4312-18T1, 2020 WL 42797839, at *6 (N.J. Super.

Ct. App. Div. July 27, 2020) (affirming dismissal of tortious interference claim because the

“complaint did not sufficiently allege it was in pursuit of future business” and noting that

“Tp]laintiff's references to ‘other suppliers,’ and plaintiff's alleged development of ‘other business

and agreements’ are simply vague conclusory statements offered to hint at a possible cause of

action”).

When stripped of its conclusions as required, all that remains are allegations that Plaintiff

found a “Verizon service box” in the basement of a multi-unit apartment building in September

2022, and that, at some unidentified point thereafter, he saw persons from Verizon climbing a

utility pole across the street from the building. (Compl. {§ 10-12.) Those allegations, even iftrue,

do not come anywhere close to suggesting that Verizon engaged in any unlawful conduct, much

less wiretapped Plaintiff's communications or burglarized his apartment. See, e.g., Scheidt, 424

N.J. Super. at 203 (after disregarding conclusory allegations, concluding “plaintiff has failed to

offer facts to support a claim that the directors breached their duty of loyalty by failing to act in

good faith”); McMullin v. Casaburi, No. A-3411-16T3, 2018 WL 3673256, at *5 (N.J. Super. Ct.

App. Div. Aug. 3, 2018) (“In their claim for aiding and abetting, plaintiffs alleged no details to

prove any defendant had knowledge that another’s ‘conduct constitutes a breach of duty and [gave]

substantial assistance or encouragement.””); Partovi, 2011 WL 867275, at *8 (affirming dismissal

of discrimination claim, noting “[l]ike a negative
job evaluation, average grades alone do not rise

to the level of actionable discrimination’).

Verizon is in the business of providing telecommunication services, and a “Verizon service

box” is not a wiretapping device. Plaintiff does not plead a single fact to suggest otherwise. See.

e.g., Berger, 2018 WL 3402115, at *4 (“What is important here is that plaintiff did not explain

-7-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg12of13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

how this reconciliation shows that Merck can practicably estimate the Tax at issue. This then is

another bare conclusion, not supported by facts.”). Likewise, Verizon as part of its business

function accesses utility poles. Even if that was not the case, the Complaint fails to allege any

facts suggesting that someone from Verizon climbed a utility pole to wiretap Plaintiffs

communications or take down wiretapping devices, or to further a conspiracy to accomplish those

ends. See, e.g., Rivas v. Homecoming Financials Network, Inc., No. A-2400-14T4, 2016 WL

3582072, at *2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 5, 2016) (“We affirm the dismissal of their claims

because they were merely conclusory and void of factual foundation.”); McFarlane v. S. Jersey

F am. Med. Centers, Inc., No. A-0380-19, 2021 WL 3853056, at *22 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.

Aug. 30, 2021) (affirming dismissal of conspiracy claim because the complaint “failed to identify

the nature of any agreement between Flake and Dr. Bergen, when it occurred, or how it was carried

out” and “[mJore importantly, plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that the purported scheme

involved an unlawful act”) (emphasis in original); L.C. v. Middlesex Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., No.

A-3654-18, 2021 WL 1327169, at *21 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 9, 2021) (affirming
dismissal of conspiracy claim because “plaintiff failed to plead any facts identifying the nature of

the agreement between defendants giving rise to a conspiracy, when the conspiracy occurred, or

how it was accomplished”).

In the end, all the Complaint offers is unsupported suspicions and paranoia. But that is not

the stuff of lawsuits. See, e.g., Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109, 129 (2013) (“Because

plaintiff's complaint is based on nothing more than his unsupported suspicion that his client would

not have discharged him absent some wrongful or improper means, it fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.”’) (emphasis added); Marrero v. Twp. ofN. Bergen, No. A-1644-14T3,

2016 WL 4046740, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 29, 2016) (“The litany of allegations

-8-
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg13o0f13 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

consisted of Marrero’s subjective feelings and personal grievances as opposed to actual facts.

Thus, dismissal was warranted.”); Small v. State, No. A-4113-13T4, 2015 WL 1057840, at *5

(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 12, 2015) (“We find plaintiffs’ counts alleging malicious

prosecution based entirely on the claim of retaliation for Small’s 2006 acquittal to be speculative

and conclusory.”).

CONCLUSION

For these reasons and the reasons set forth below, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's

Complaint in its entirety.

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

Dated: December 11, 2023 By: /s/ Reynold Lambert
Reynold Lambert

-9-

ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pglof2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

THEODORE BOHN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF ESSEX, LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: ESX-L-005694-23
Vv.

VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC., JOHN
DOES 1-30, JANE DOES 1-10, X, Y, Civil Action
AND Z,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Defendants.

REYNOLD LAMBERT, of full age, hereby certifies and starters as follows:

1 I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and partner at the law firm of

Lowenstein Sandler LLP, counsel for Defendant Verizon New Jersey, Inc. (“Defendant”).

2. On December 11, 2023, I caused a copy of Defendant’s (1) Notice of Motion to

Dismiss; (2) Memorandum of Law in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; (3) Certification

of Reynold Lambert, Esq. with Exhibits; (4) Proposed form of Order; and (5) this Certificate of

Service to be provided through the eCourts system and via e-mail to the following:

Theodore Bohn
90 Montgomery Street
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
ted1091@gmail.com
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg2of2 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Thereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I understand that if the

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

Dated: December 11, 2023 By: /s/ Reynold Lambert
Reynold Lambert
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM Pglof121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

THEODORE BOHN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
COUNTY OF ESSEX, LAW DIVISION
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: ESX-L-005694-23
V.

VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC., JOHN
DOES 1-30, JANE DOES 1-10, X, Y, Civil Action
AND Z,
CERTIFICATION OF REYNOLD
Defendants. LAMBERT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DISMISS

REYNOLD LAMBERT, of full age, hereby certifies and starters as follows:

1 I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and partner at the law firm of

Lowenstein Sandler LLP, counsel for Defendant Verizon New Jersey, Inc. I am fully familiar with

the facts set forth herein.

2 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Second Amended

Complaint filed on May 14, 2021, in Bohn v. Wolf, No. 2:20-cv-10377 (D.N.J. 2021) (the “Wolf

Case’).

3 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal filed on October 19, 2021, in the Wolf Case.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg2of121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

4 Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the letter from Plaintiff

filed on October 19, 2021, in the Wolf Case.

5 Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of unpublished opinions

cited in the Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule

1:36-3.

Thereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I understand that if the

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Reynold Lambert, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 029432007
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
NJ State Bar No. 027781992
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
973.597.2500

Attorneys for Verizon New Jersey Inc.

Dated: December 11, 2023 By: /s/ Reynold Lambert
Reynold Lambert
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14PM Pg3of121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801

EXHIBIT A
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM P 40f121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801
Case 2:2U0-Cv-1U3//-SDW-LDW_ Document 55 led 05/14/21 Page 1 of 28 PagelD: 211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
THEODORE BOHN,
Plaintiff
SECOND
-vs- AMENDED
COMPLAINT
ALEJANDRO as Secretary
MYORKAS, of
The United States Department of Homeland
Security, CHAD WOLF, Individually,
25 JOHN DOES, 25 JANE DOES, and A-M, JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a
Trial by jury on all
Defendants. Issues so triable

DOCKET NO.: 2:20-cv-
10377
----------------
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+

Plaintiff, as and for his Complaint, says:

PARTIES

1 Plaintiff is an attorney of thirty-three years, a Gay

activist and human rights activist [Ex. 1).

2 Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey.!

3 At the time of the events complained of, defendant CHAD WOLF

was Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland

Security (hereafter referred to as
“DHS”) ; he was named in his

official capacity but pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 25( ), defendant

Alejandro Mayorkas was substituted in his stead upon confirmation.

Defendant WOLF is named as a party defendant in his individual

capacity for events herein complained of, antedating the substitution

1 Between 2002 and 2004, plaintiff moved from NYC to Maywood, NJ. In 2004
plaintiff moved back to NY. In 2012, plaintiff moved back to NJ. At all
times material hereto, plaintiff has maintained law offices in both
jurisdictions.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM P 5 of 121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801
Case 2:2U0-Cv-1U3//-SDW-LDW_ Document 55 led 05/14/21 Page 2 of 28 PagelD: 212

of defendant Mayorkas.?

4. Defendant Wolf was never confirmed to his position at the time

of the events herein complained of. Additionally, none of the conduct

complained of herein is within the scope of defendant DHS’ statutory

authority.? Further, the conduct complained of also evinces a flagrant

disregard for defendant DHS’ affirmative statutory obligations to

safeguard the civil rights of American citizens.‘ If, as believed,

defendant DHS’ agents/employees had involvement in the acts herein

complained of without coming to the attention of supervisory

personnel, then defendant DHS is bereft of internal controls necessary

to interdict such behavior.®

5. Defendants John Doe 1-25 are individuals whose identities are

presently unknown. Upon information and belief some of the John Doe

defendants are employees of defendant U.S. Department of Homeland

Security; others are employees of State or local law enforcement

complicit in the acts herein complained of. Upon information and

belief, still others are civilian confederates of the DHS defendants.

6. Defendants Jane Doe 1-25 are individuals whose identities are

presently unknown. Upon information and belief some of the Jane Doe

defendants are employees of defendant U.S. Department of Homeland

Security; others are employees of State or local law enforcement

complicit in the acts herein complained of. Upon information and

belief, still others are civilian confederates of the DHS defendants.

2 The events of May 14, 2016, (Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) are critical in this
regard inasmuch as defendant DHS did not have probable cause or reasonable
suspicion to subject plaintiff to surveillance and did so solely for purposes
of intimidation, a purpose outside the scope of defendant’s statutory
authority.
3 See, e.g., 6 U.S.C. §§ 111, et seq.

46 U.S.C. § 345.

5 Additionally, the pattern of behavior described in this Complaint
constitutes a continuous, unbroken pattern of conduct.
ESX-L-005694-23 12/11/2023 3:11:14 PM P 6 of 121 Trans ID: LCV20233597801
Case 2:2U0-Cv-1U3//-SDW-LDW_ Document 55 led 05/14/21 Page 3 of 28 PagelD: 213

7. Defendants A - M are juridical entities which, upon

information and belief, have acted at the direction or in concert with

the DHS defendants to further the criminal acts complained of, to

violate plaintiff’s right to financial privacy, and to deprive the

plaintiff of rights secured by the 4*, 5th, and 14*® Amendments to the

Constitution of the United States.

8 In each instance, the Doe defendants/juridical defendants

will be added as discovery progresses.

9. The Statement of Facts (“factual predicate”) sets forth

events, international in scope, which demonstrate that plaintiff has

been kept under relentless surveillance for more than 15 years. Apart

from the events of May 14, 2016, many of the events complained of

involve areas in which defendant DHS has or had exclusive authority.®

10. Because of the international nature of these violations,

and because of the fact that Defendant DHS showed its hand in a

blatant surveillance stunt on May 14, 2016, it is plaintiff’s belief

that defendant DHS has been responsible for the full panoply of events

recited herein. However, defendant DHS is in exclusive possession of

facts/documents necessary to dis/confirm what the circumstances

plainly and plausibly suggest.

11. Moreover, given this dilemma, it is impossible to know at

this juncture who the proper parties-defendant should be, and in what

capacities (i.e., whether they should be properly sued in their

individual capacities, or only in their official capacities). If

defendant has been responsible for these events —

Case Info

Judge

Keith E Lynott Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 11, 2023

Case Filing Date

September 04, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Bohn Theodore Vs Verizon Communicatio Ns, Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties