Get News Updates RSS RSS Feed
Get News Updates
Real Estate
Mortgage
Automotive
Employment
Services
Classifieds
Marketplace
Media Kit
News
HOME
Front Page
Bulletin Board
Letters
Editorials
Obituaries
Schools
Sports
GMN Photo Page
Online Obituary Submission
Featured Special Section
Monmouth West & Ocean County
Health & FItness Guide
About Us
Archive
Contact us
Services
Advertiser Index
Copyright©
2000 - 2008
GMN
All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use
April 30, 2008
Search Archives


Two sides due back in court

MARLBORO - The case of the Marlboro Players vs. John Does is on hold for the moment. A defamation case that was filed by the Marlboro Players theater group against unnamed individuals was prompted by comments that were posted on the NJ.com theater forum Internet message board.

Comments posted on the forumwere directed against the Marlboro Players and members of its board of directors. The case was to be heard on April 18, but was adjourned until May 16.

A letter was submitted on April 16 to state Superior Court Judge Daniel Waldman, who is presiding over the case, and signed by 11members of theMarlboro Players who are opposed to the use of the group's funds for the lawsuit.

Because membership in the Marlboro Players allows each individual a vote, the 11 people who are opposed to the expenditure of funds for the lawsuit would outnumber the number of votes fromthe board of directors. There are seven seats on the board of directors, five of which are filled.

Waldman responded to the petition by adjourning the case for the moment.

"Your letter to me suggests that the board of directors or the trustees, as the case may be, may have acted in an unlawful fashion by proceeding with the litigation," Waldman said in a letter directed to theMarlboro Playersmember who had forwarded him the petition.

The judge went on to write that due to the letter creating an issue as to whether the corporation was acting in an unauthorized fashion, he adjourned the hearing, which will provide attorney Stuart Moskovitz, who is representing the Marlboro Players, time "to provide the court with the appropriate corporate documentation that establishes his authority to proceed with the litigation."

Waldman went on to advise that those seeking to intervene in the matter should do so in amatter pursuant to the civil rules of practice and procedure.

"Any intervention should be effected forthwith and any intervention motion must be accompanied by sworn affidavits or certifications as well as briefs on the law," Waldman concluded.