A federal bankruptcy judge last month dismissed U.S. Sen. Cory Booker from the lawsuit seeking damages.
NEWARK -- The corporation that supplied Newark's water but went bankrupt during U.S. Sen. Cory Booker's tenure as mayor is appealing a decision to dismiss him from a case seeking damages for alleged negligence.
The Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corp. filed its notice of appeal this week in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
A federal bankruptcy judge in June dismissed Booker from the damages suit. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent F. Papalia ruled that Booker was immune from liability because his actions or inactions were an exercise of "judgment or discretion" or were legislative in nature.
Booker attorney Marc Elias said the lawsuit is a waste of the public's money.
The trustees, he said, "need to turn the page from this bizarre legal chapter and start focusing on serving the best interests of the people of Newark.
"The truth is, whether he was fighting to reform Newark's watershed in the face of politically-driven opposition or taking immediate action once evidence of serious wrongdoing by watershed employees emerged, Cory Booker always made the efficient and safe delivery of water to Newark the priority it should be," said Elias.
The watershed corporation was led by Booker as its chairman following his election as mayor in 2006.
After its bankruptcy, an interim board filed suit against Booker, its former executive director, Linda Watkins-Brashear and more than a dozen others, charging that they were partially responsible for its financial collapse. Booker failed to conduct even minimal oversight of the organization, the suit said, while Watkins-Brashear issued improper contracts and took kickbacks totaling about $1 million.
Law firm pays $1M to settle claims
She pleaded guilty last year to charges related to the kickbacks and will be sentenced later this year.
Booker argued that he was protected by the Tort Claims Act, which covers a public employee in a private suit for damages. The trustees argued that Booker was not entitled to the immunity because the statute was not meant to protect a public employee from a claim made by a public entity.
The judge rejected the argument, saying that it was "directly contrary" to the act's central purposes.
He added that finding the exception to immunity urged by the watershed corporation "would endorse a piecemeal approach to public employee liability that would, in this court's view, result in disorder and, more importantly, discourage public service."
Tim Darragh may be reached at tdarragh@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @timdarragh. Find NJ.com on Facebook.