FAOUZIA METOUI VS. CITY OF JERSEY CITY (L-2298-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3524-17T3
FAOUZIA METOUI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF JERSEY CITY,
Defendant-Respondent,
and
COUNTY OF HUDSON, and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendants.
______________________________
Submitted March 13, 2019 – Decided July 3, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2298-17.
Rothenberg, Rubenstein, Berliner & Shinrod, attorneys
for appellant (Alan K. Berliner, on the brief).
Peter J. Baker, Corporation Counsel, attorney for
respondent; Maura E. Connelly, Assistant Corporation
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Faouzia Metoui appeals from the order of the Law Division that
granted defendant City of Jersey City's motion to dismiss his complaint seeking
compensatory damages caused by injuries sustained in a trip and fall accident
that allegedly occurred on June 19, 2015. The motion judge found plaintiff
failed to serve defendant with the notice of claim required by N.J.S.A. 59:8-8
under the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice as a matter of law.
The brief plaintiff's counsel filed in support of this appeal does not
comport with any of the requirements of the rules of appellate practice.
Specifically, Rule 2:6-2(a)(5) requires appellant's brief to include:
A concise statement of the facts material to the issues
on appeal supported by references to the appendix and
transcript. The statement shall be in the form of a
narrative chronological summary incorporating all
pertinent evidence and shall not be a summary of all of
the evidence adduced at trial, witness by witness.
Plaintiff's counsel's appellate brief provided the following facts:
On or about August 13, 2015, Defendant City of Jersey
City received Plaintiff Metoui [sic] Notice of Claim
notifying it of a fall down incident that occurred on
A-3524-17T3
2
June 15, 2015. (Pa23 to Pa 28). Attached to the Notice
of Claim was a photo of the paved over hole (Pa 60 to
61), photo of Plaintiff (Pa49) and emergency room
record (Pa50).
Defendant City of Jersey City forwarded a letter dated
August 18, 2015 to Plaintiff's counsel (Pa30).
Plaintiff-Appellant replied by letter dated September 9,
2015 (Pa32).
Defendant City of Jersey City [sic] Motion to Dismiss
in lieu of an Answer was granted January 5, 2018 (Pa11
to Pa12).
Rule 2:6-2(a)(6) requires plaintiff's counsel to present his legal arguments
in the following manner:
The legal argument for the appellant, which shall be
divided, under appropriate point headings, distinctively
printed or typed, into as many parts as there are points
to be argued. For every point, the appellant shall
include in parentheses at the end of the point heading
the place in the record where the opinion or ruling in
question is located or if the issue was not raised below
a statement indicating that the issue was not raised
below. New Jersey decisions shall be cited to the
official New Jersey reports by volume number but if not
officially reported that fact shall be stated and
unofficial citation made. All other state court decisions
shall be cited to the National Reporter System, if
reported therein and, if not, to the official report. In the
citation of all cases the court and year shall be indicated
in parentheses except that the year alone shall be given
in citing the official reports of the United States
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and
the highest court of any other jurisdiction.
A-3524-17T3
3
The only case plaintiff's counsel included in the section of the brief
denoted "Table of cases ETC" is not cited in the one and one-quarter pages
denoted: "POINT HEADING/LEGAL ARGUMENT." Plaintiff's counsel did
not cite any legal authority nor mention the TCA in any part of his legal
argument.
In Sackman v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 445 N.J. Super. 278, 297 (App.
Div. 2016), this court "repudiated the same type of shoddy, unprofessional
submission" we confront in this appeal and reaffirmed the following standards
of professionalism that must be followed in the presentation of a legal argument
in appellate briefs:
Despite the fact that independent research by the court
is, to a greater or lesser extent, the invariable rule, the
parties may not escape their initial obligation to justify
their positions by specific reference to legal authority.
Paucity of such reference suggests a like paucity of
authority helpful to the party. The absence of any
reference to the law, as here, suggests as well a
regrettable and reprehensible indifference on the part of
the brief writer not only to the rules but to the interest
of the client as well.
[Ibid. (quoting State v. Hild, 148 N.J. Super. 294, 296
(App. Div. 1977)).]
We also provided in Sackman the following guidelines attorneys are
expected to follow when they seek appellate review from this court:
A-3524-17T3
4
Lawyers who take on the responsibility to represent
clients before this court are expected to: (1) familiarize
themselves with the record developed in the forum of
origin; (2) research and analyze the competent legal
authority related to the salient facts of the case; and (3)
submit briefs in support of the arguments identified
therein which reflect that the lawyers conducted these
tasks in a diligent and professional manner. This is the
kind of effort a tribunal in this State is entitled to expect
from an attorney admitted to practice in this State.
Most importantly, as we noted in Hild, this is the kind
of professional effort an attorney owes to his or her
client.
[445 N.J. Super. at 298.]
In light of plaintiff's counsel's unprofessionalism and utter disregard for
the rules of appellate practice, we exercise our discretionary authority under
Rule 2:8-3(b) and Rule 2:9-9, and summarily affirm the Law Division's order
dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice without further comment. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3524-17T3
5