Bridgegate fallout: Nearly half of traffic jam victims abandon civil lawsuit

More than a decade after intentional lane closures at the George Washington Bridge sparked criminal convictions and national headlines, the civil case brought by those caught in the massive traffic jam is beginning to fracture.

On Sept. 22, attorneys for about half of the individuals and transportation companies who are suing over the so-called Bridgegate lane closures, told a federal judge their clients are dropping the case.

In a letter filed with the U.S. District Court, lawyers in Galicki v. State of New Jersey said they would no longer pursue individual claims after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied their petition to appeal over class certification.

Class certification is a legal step where a judge decides whether a lawsuit brought by one or a few people can proceed as a class action — meaning it represents a larger group of people with similar claims.

The letter, submitted by Michael J. Epstein and Michael A. Rabasca of The Epstein Law Firm, stated that “the proposed class representatives will not be pursuing their claims further on an individual basis and are prepared to dismiss their claims at this juncture.”

Epstein declined to comment on the case.

The dismissal comes in one of the last remaining legal battles stemming from the Bridgegate scandal, which once threatened to derail then-Gov. Chris Christie’s political career and became a symbol of political retribution.

Despite a wave of withdrawals from the case, Fort Lee-based attorney Rosemarie Arnold says she represents a separate group of plaintiffs who intend to press forward with individual claims.

“Many of the people I represent plan to move forward in their individual capacities,” Arnold said.

“What happened here was a political travesty, and as a result, human beings were injured — which in and of itself is a disgrace,” she added.

The civil case was filed in January 2014, days after revelations that senior officials in Christie’s administration had ordered lane closures at the bridge’s Fort Lee entrance.

The closures, which lasted from Sept. 9 to Sept. 13, 2013, were allegedly retaliation against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who declined to endorse Christie’s reelection.

David Wildstein, a Port Authority executive and longtime Christie ally, admitted to planning the scheme and implicated Bridget Anne Kelly, Christie’s deputy chief of staff, and Bill Baroni, the Port Authority’s deputy executive director.

The three initially claimed the closures were part of a traffic study.

Federal prosecutors, led by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman, brought charges against all three.

Wildstein pleaded guilty and cooperated with the investigation.

Kelly and Baroni were convicted in 2016 and sentenced to prison.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those convictions, ruling that while the scheme was deceptive, it didn’t meet the federal definition of fraud because it didn’t involve obtaining money or property.

Christie was never charged and has consistently denied any role in the plot.

The plaintiffs — drivers and passengers affected by the closures — filed a class action alleging civil rights violations, conspiracy and other claims against the state of New Jersey, the Port Authority and several Christie aides.

After years in court, only six claims survived against Baroni, Wildstein and the Port Authority.

In 2021, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals delayed by the closures.

In March 2023, U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals denied the motion, citing the inability to reliably identify class members due to restrictions on accessing E-ZPass records.

The court found that New Jersey law barred discovery of toll data obtained via photo-monitoring systems, except in criminal matters.

Because they couldn’t get access to toll records, the plaintiffs would have had to rely on people’s personal statements to prove who was affected — but the court said that wasn’t good enough to meet the legal standard for forming a class.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey declined to comment on the case.

The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, which represents Christie in the case, declined to comment on the case.