A dispute over a truck engine rebuild led to a legal battle about whether law enforcement properly executed a court order to recover the vehicle, raising questions about responsibility when private parties and public officials interact over property rights. The case was brought by John D’Angelo, who filed an appeal in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, on January 14, 2026, against Diesel Ed LLC, Edward Roach, and the Middlesex County Sheriff.
According to court documents, D’Angelo’s Mack Dump Truck suffered total engine failure. He hired Edward Roach and his company Diesel Ed LLC to diagnose and repair the problem. After two months without completed repairs or an itemized invoice as requested by D’Angelo, he learned that Diesel Ed was not performing the work themselves. Instead, Roach told him that “the engine was in the possession of someone located in Millstone, Monmouth County.” D’Angelo said defendants refused to reveal where or with whom the engine was located and admitted repairs were incomplete.
D’Angelo then instructed Diesel Ed to stop working on the truck and asked for its location so another mechanic could finish repairs. Defendants allegedly refused this request as well. When D’Angelo went to retrieve his truck from Diesel Ed’s yard in Monmouth Junction, he found it blocked by a forklift and stripped of its engine. Police were called after repeated attempts to access the vehicle were unsuccessful; Roach reportedly told officers that the forklift blocking access “was dead and would need to be repaired before it could be moved.”
D’Angelo filed a verified complaint seeking immediate injunctive relief ordering defendants to return his truck and disclose information about its engine’s whereabouts. The court ordered that D’Angelo was entitled to “retain immediate possession of [the truck] . . . its engine and all component parts” and required defendants to disclose where the engine was located as well as who had it. A writ of possession directed the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office (MCS) to recover the truck from Diesel Ed’s yard.
When MCS attempted execution of this writ, officers found large construction equipment with a flat tire blocking access; Roach “refused to cooperate; he refused to release anything identified in the [w]rit.” Additionally, although D’Angelo was present at this attempt, he did not have a tow truck with him—something his attorney had previously indicated would be necessary: “Plaintiff needs to arrange to have a tow truck there at the time of execution,” counsel wrote MCS.
Further motions followed when defendants continued not complying with court orders. The court warned them that noncompliance could result in sanctions and eventually ordered Roach to appear before it for possible contempt charges. Default judgment was entered against Diesel Ed LLC and Roach, again requiring them to return both truck and engine.
D’Angelo amended his complaint during these proceedings to assert amercement—a monetary penalty for neglect of duty—against MCS under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-109. He argued that MCS failed in their duty regarding execution of writs resulting in loss or damage.
On August 26, 2024, however, summary judgment was granted in favor of MCS by the trial court. The decision stated: “it was [p]laintiff’s obligation to supply the means to remove the heavy equipment [they] wished to recover,” noting that without a tow truck present at execution time—as required—recovery could not occur: “Without a tow truck, the items could not be recovered.” The court also noted plaintiff provided no evidence opposing summary judgment on amercement claims.
The appellate opinion confirmed these findings: “We are satisfied the actions taken by MCS cannot be characterized as neglectful or as a failure to carry out its legal duty… Its efforts were thwarted by plaintiff’s failure to provide a tow truck and defendants’ noncooperation.” Furthermore, while plaintiff requested permission for law enforcement officers executing orders or writs “to arrest [Roach],” this request was denied by the court.
Ultimately, final default judgment favored D’Angelo against Diesel Ed LLC and Roach regarding return of property but dismissed all claims against MCS for amercement or constitutional violations due lack of evidence showing neglect or misconduct by law enforcement.
Attorneys involved included Susan M. Markenstein (Markenstein Law LLC) representing appellant John D’Angelo and Clark W. Convery (Convery, Convery & Shihar PC) representing respondent Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office. The case is identified as Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A-0386-24.
Source: A038624_DAngelo_v_Diesel_Ed_LLC_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
