PRD MANAGEMENT, INC., ETC. VS. WILLIAM RICHARDSON (L-0061-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4326-18T4
PRD MANAGEMENT, INC.
t/a TAUNTON RUN VILLAGE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM RICHARDSON,
Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRD MANAGEMENT, INC.
t/a TAUNTON RUN VILLAGE
and MICHELE LERRO,
Third-Party Defendants-
Respondents.
____________________________
Argued November 17, 2020 – Decided January 15, 2021
Before Judges Gilson and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-0061-17.
Theresa C. Grabowski argued the cause for appellant.
Michael J. Weiss argued the cause for respondent
PRD Management, Inc. t/a Taunton Run Village.
Darren C. Kayal argued the cause for respondents
PRD Management, Inc. t/a Taunton Run Village and
Michele Lerro (Rudolph & Kayal, PA, attorneys;
Darren C. Kayal, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This appeal arises out of disputes between a landlord and a tenant. The
landlord, PRD Management, Inc. t/a Taunton Run Village (PRD), filed an action
to evict the tenant, William Richardson. Richardson responded by filing
counterclaims and a third-party complaint against PRD and one of its
employees, Michele Lerro. Following a series of motions to compel discovery
and seeking summary judgment, the matter proceeded to arbitration in
accordance with Rule 4:21A. The arbitrators awarded PRD a net award of
$2,257 and stated that Richardson was "100%" liable and PRD had "0" liability.
No party sought to reject the arbitration award or to demand a trial de
novo. Instead, PRD and Richardson cross-moved to confirm the arbitration
award. Richardson argued that the arbitration award entitled him to treble
damages and attorney's fees under the Anti-Eviction Act (the Act), N.J.S.A.
2A:18-61.1 to -61.12. The trial court rejected Richardson's interpretation of the
A-4326-18T4
2
arbitration award and entered orders confirming the award. In that regard, the
trial court entered a judgment in favor of PRD, requiring Richardson to pay
$2,257, as well as pre-judgment interest. The judgment also dismissed with
prejudice all the claims in Richardson's counterclaim and third-party complaint.
Richardson seeks to appeal from several pre-arbitration interlocutory
orders and the orders confirming the arbitration award. We dismiss the appeal
from the interlocutory orders because Richardson did not seek a trial de novo.
Moreover, because the trial court correctly confirmed the arbitration award, we
also dismiss Richardson's appeal of those orders because the arbitration award
is not subject to appeal. See R. 4:21A-6(a).
I.
PRD is a landlord of an apartment complex. Richardson had been a tenant
of the complex for seventeen years when, in November 2016, PRD filed an
action to evict Richardson, contending that he had failed to pay rent. PRD filed
the action because it believed Richardson had violated his lease by continuously
feeding wild cats on the property.
In response, Richardson filed an answer, counterclaims, and a third-party
complaint. In his third-party complaint, Richardson asserted various causes of
action, including wrongful eviction; malicious prosecution; invasion of privacy;
A-4326-18T4
3
extortion; harassment; breach of contract; intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress; and violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1
to -20.
The parties engaged in discovery, during which several disputes arose.
On December 15, 2017, in response to cross-motions to compel, the trial court
entered an order directing PRD and Richardson to provide certain discovery.
The order also stated that the complaint, answer, and defenses of PRD and Lerro
were stricken without prejudice.
In 2018, PRD and Lerro moved to reinstate their answer and defenses,
representing that they had supplied discovery. The trial court granted that
motion in an order entered on April 27, 2018. The April 27, 2018 order also
expressly stated that the order of December 15, 2017 was "vacated[.]"
In May 2018, PRD and Lerro moved for summary judgment, seeking to
dismiss the third-party complaint. Richardson cross-moved for summary
judgment in his favor. In an order dated June 18, 2018, the trial court granted
partial summary judgment to PRD and dismissed all but two counts of
Richardson's third-party complaint. The remaining claims alleged wrongful
eviction and misrepresentation related to the wrongful eviction. The court also
A-4326-18T4
4
dismissed all claims against Lerro and denied Richardson's cross-motion for
summary judgment.
In July 2018, Richardson filed a motion to vacate the June 18, 2018 and
April 27, 2018 orders and recuse the trial judge. Those motions were denied in
an order entered on November 9, 2018.
In the November 9, 2018 order, the trial court also ordered the parties to
attend arbitration under Rule 4:21A. The arbitration was conducted on February
26, 2019. A two-member arbitration panel entered an award in favor of PRD in
the amount of $2,257. The arbitrators briefly set forth the reasons for the award
and explained that they were awarding PRD a net award based on PRD's claim
of unpaid rent in the amount of $4,757, less credits given to Richardson for his
"security deposit, moving expenses and other damages totaling $2 ,500[.]" In
other words, the arbitrators awarded PRD unpaid rent in the amount of $4,757,
deducted $2,500, and entered a "net award [of] $2,257.00[.]"
No party rejected the arbitration award, nor did any party file a demand
for a trial de novo. Instead, the parties cross-moved to confirm the arbitration
award. In his cross-motion, Richardson contended the arbitrators effectively
found that PRD had wrongfully evicted him in violation of the Act and,
therefore, he was entitled to treble damages and attorney's fees.
A-4326-18T4
5
The trial court heard oral argument on the cross-motions to confirm the
arbitration award and, on April 26, 2019, the court entered three orders. The
court denied Richardson's request for treble damages and attorney's fees. The
court then entered orders confirming the arbitration award by entering a
judgment in favor of PRD and requiring Richardson to pay $2,257. The court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims set forth by Richardson in his
counterclaims and third-party complaint.
Richardson now seeks to appeal from seven orders. Specifically, he seeks
to appeal from pre-arbitration orders entered on August 18, 2017, April 27,
2018, June 18, 2018, and November 9, 2018. He also seeks to appeal from three
orders entered on April 26, 2019, confirming the arbitration award.
II.
"Rule 4:21A governs the arbitration of civil actions[.]" Grey v. Trump
Castle Assocs., L.P., 367 N.J. Super. 443, 447 (App. Div. 2004). The rule sets
forth procedures for arbitrating certain civil disputes. See R. 4:21A-4. Those
procedures are designed to promote efficiency and to conserve judicial
resources. Grey, 367 N.J. Super. at 447.
Any party dissatisfied with the arbitration award can file a demand for a
trial de novo within thirty days. R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). If a demand is not filed, any
A-4326-18T4
6
party may move for confirmation of the award and entry of a judgment. R.
4:21A-6(b)(3). "The decision and award of the arbitrator shall not be subject to
appeal." R. 4:21A-6(a). "[T]he judgment confirming an arbitration award is
designed to preclude all further proceedings in the action, including appellate
review." Grey, 367 N.J. Super. at 448.
Richardson seeks to appeal from four interlocutory orders entered before
the arbitration was conducted. Our decision in Grey precludes such review and
requires us to dismiss that portion of his appeal. See ibid.Richardson also seeks to appeal from the orders confirming the arbitration
award and entering judgment on the award. Richardson contends that the
arbitrators effectively found that he had been wrongfully evicted and that he is,
therefore, entitled to treble damages and attorney's fees under the Act. The
arbitration award did not state that Richardson was a prevailing party under his
claim of wrongful eviction under the Act. Instead, the award expressly found
that he was "100%" liable and that PRD had no liability. While the arbitrators
entered a net award giving Richardson credit for certain expenses, the arbitration
award itself does not state that Richardson is entitled to any relief beyond an
offset against PRD's claim for unpaid rent.
A-4326-18T4
7
The trial court correctly entered a judgment based on the arbitration
award. The trial court also correctly dismissed with prejudice Richardson's
counterclaims and third-party claims. See R. 4:21A-6(b).
Richardson also contends that the arbitration award was effectively flawed
because PRD's complaint was dismissed and never reinstated. That argument
lacks support in the record for several reasons. First, Richardson relies on the
December 15, 2017 order, arguing that PRD's complaint was dismissed. While
that order states that PRD's complaint was dismissed, that December 15, 2017
order was vacated by the April 27, 2018 order.
Moreover, the arbitrators clearly considered PRD's claims for unpaid rent
and made an award on those claims. If Richardson intended to dispute that the
arbitrators had jurisdiction to consider PRD's complaint, he needed to file a
timely notice rejecting the arbitration award and a demand for a trial de novo.
See Grey, 367 N.J. Super. at 447-49; R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). Because Richardson
failed to file that notice or demand, the court confirmed the arbitration award
and Richardson lost all rights to appeal. See R. 4:21A-6(a).
Dismissed.
A-4326-18T4
8