ANAND DAVID VS. KEIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC (L-2732-15 AND L-1706-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-3170-17T4
    ANAND DAVID and GEETA
    GOHAL DAVID,
    Plaintiffs-Respondents,
    v.
    KEIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION,
    LLC, GORDON KEIL, and ROBIN KEIL,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    ___________________________________
    KEIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION,
    LLC, GORDON KEIL, and ROBIN KEIL,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    ANAND DAVID and GEETA
    GOHAL DAVID,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    ___________________________________
    Submitted April 3, 2019 – Decided August 7, 2019
    Before Judges Nugent and Reisner.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Essex County, Docket Nos. L-2732-15 and L-
    1706-17.
    John Rue & Associates, attorneys for appellants (Krista
    L. Haley and Donald A. Soutar, on the briefs).
    Mc Elroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP,
    attorneys for respondents (Craig Howard Parker, of
    counsel and on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Gordon Keil, Robin Keil, and Keil Design & Construction (the Keils)
    appeal from a January 31, 2018 order denying reconsideration of an order that
    denied their applications for frivolous pleading sanctions. The Keils had sought
    counsel fees from Anand David, Geeta Gohol David (the Davids), and their
    attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP (McElroy) and Craig
    H. Parker, for filing and pursuing a frivolous lawsuit. Judge Patrick J. Bartels
    dismissed the Keils' claim for sanctions as untimely and denied their motion for
    reconsideration. We affirm.
    This is the background. In October 2013, the Davids and Gordon and
    Robin Keil entered into a real estate contract in which the Davids agreed to buy
    Gordon and Robin Keil's Montclair home. Closing took place in November
    2013. The contract contained clauses that the home was being sold "as is,"
    A-3170-17T4
    2
    sellers were making no representation as to the property's character or quality,
    and therefore buyers were granted the right to have the dwelling and all other
    aspects of the property inspected. Other clauses in the contract provided that
    the contract contained the entire agreement between the parties, and no
    representations had been made by the parties except as set forth in the contract.
    Notwithstanding these clauses, in April 2015, more than a year after
    closing, the Davids filed a lawsuit, not only against Gordon Keil and Robin Keil
    but also against Keil Design & Construction, LLC, which had no ownership
    interest in the home. The complaint's four counts were based on claims of
    alleged concealment and oral misrepresentations.
    The trial court dismissed two of the complaint's four counts and part of a
    third count on the Keils' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
    cause of action.    The court dismissed the remaining counts on summary
    judgment.
    The Keils sought frivolous pleading sanctions. Parties seeking sanctions
    against an adversary for filing frivolous litigation are required by Rule 1:4-
    8(b)(1) to make the application "by motion made separately from other
    applications." Rule 1:4-8(b)(2) requires that "[a] motion for sanctions shall be
    filed with the court no later than 20 days following the entry of final judgment."
    A-3170-17T4
    3
    The summary judgment, which disposed of all issues as to all parties, was
    granted on January 6, 2017. The Keils thus had until January 26, 2017, to file
    the motion for sanctions.
    In an August 11, 2017 decision denying the motion for sanctions Judge
    Bartels recounted what occurred when the Keils attempted to file the motion for
    sanctions:
    On January 26, 2017, the Keils attempted to file
    a Rule 1:4-8 Motion for Sanctions with the Court.
    However, the documents filed were not signed, did not
    include a proposed form of order, a Notice of Motion
    or the filing application fee. Because of these
    deficiencies, the Clerk's Office labeled the submission
    a "Miscellaneous Brief." On January 30, 2017, the
    Keils filed a "corrected" Notice of Motion for Sanctions
    at which time the Clerk's Office accepted their
    submission as a Motion. However, the "corrected"
    Motion was still lacking a signature, application fee and
    proposed order. Because of these deficiencies the
    Clerk's Office stamped the documents "Received but
    Not Filed" and returned them to the Keils as being
    deficient. The Clerk's records indicate that the Keil's
    [sic] corrected Motion for Sanctions was ultimately
    considered filed with the Court on February 13, 2017.
    ....
    On March 6, 2017, the Keils filed a separate
    complaint against the Davids themselves for Frivolous
    Litigation under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.l. This matter was
    captioned Keil Design and Construction, LLC, et al. v.
    David, et al., Docket No. ESX-L-1706-17.
    A-3170-17T4
    4
    When the Keils filed the separate action seeking frivolous litigation
    sanctions against the Davids under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, they had not complied
    with the procedural requirements of Rule 1:4-8, which are applicable to a claim
    filed under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1. Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 
    190 N.J. 61
    , 72 (2007). Specifically, they had not filed their application by "motion,"
    R. 1:4-8(b)(1), nor had they filed it timely, R. 1:4-8(b)(2).
    In a thorough and cogent written opinion, Judge Bartels dismissed as the
    Keils' 2017 complaint seeking sanctions against the Davids under N.J.S.A.
    2A:15-59 and denied as untimely the Keils' motion for sanctions against
    McElroy and Parker. The Keils filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge
    Bartels denied the motion in another thorough and cogent written opinion. Judge
    Bartels concluded the Keils had not satisfied the standard for reconsideration set
    forth in D'Atria v. D'Atria, 
    242 N.J. Super. 392
    , 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990).
    We affirm, substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Bartels in his
    January 31, 2018 written opinion. In denying the Keils' reconsideration motion,
    the judge acted well within his discretion. Although the Keils' notice of appeal
    states they are appealing only from the January 31, 2018 order, we have al so
    considered the August 11, 2017 order and written decision and found Judge
    A-3170-17T4
    5
    Bartels acted well within his discretion in denying that motion as well. Further
    discussion of the Keils' arguments is unwarranted. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    A-3170-17T4
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-3170-17T4

Filed Date: 8/7/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2019