BEN GROSS VS. ROBERT CORMACK (L-4698-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3686-18T2
BEN GROSS,1
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT CORMACK,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________
Submitted May 13, 2020 – Decided June 2, 2020
Before Judges Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-4698-14.
Ben Gross, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
1
Referenced in the record also as Bezalel Grossberger.
Self-represented plaintiff Ben Gross appeals from an April 9, 2019 order
entered by Judge Lisa P. Thornton, A.J.S.C., denying his motion to reinstate a
complaint. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Thornton's
order.
We briefly summarize the facts. Defendant Robert Cormack, an attorney
licensed to practice law in New Jersey, represented a client who sued plaintiff
in an action in Ocean County (Ocean County action). After defendant's client
prevailed in the Ocean County action, plaintiff filed suit against defendant in
Monmouth County (Monmouth County action), claiming defendant made
defamatory statements about him in the Ocean County action and tortiously
interfered with plaintiff collecting damages against defendant's client. On
February 20, 2015, Judge Dennis R. O'Brien granted defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's case with prejudice.
On June 1, 2015, plaintiff moved to reinstate his complaint and for leave
to amend. On June 26, 2015, Judge O'Brien denied plaintiff's motion and the
case remained dismissed with prejudice. On July 1, 2015, plaintiff filed another
motion seeking a "declaration of legal relations," repeating arguments
previously raised and rejected in the February 20, 2015 order. Judge O'Brien
A-3686-18T2
2
viewed plaintiff's motion as a motion for "reconsideration of the denial of a prior
motion for reconsideration" and denied the application on July 24, 2015.
On January 14, 2019, plaintiff submitted pleadings to Judge Thornton for
her review, pursuant to her December 1, 2017 order. 2 Plaintiff sought to
reinstate the Monmouth County action against defendant. On April 9, 2019,
Judge Thornton denied his application, stating "a review of the pleadings
indicate[s] this filing is designed to perpetuate the pattern of frivolous litigation
plaintiff has engaged in on prior matters." In her opinion, Judge Thornton
specifically referenced Judge O'Brien's February 10, 2015 and July 24, 2015
orders. Additionally, she noted plaintiff's motion for reinstatement did "not
comply with the requirements of any New Jersey Court Rule, more specifically
[Rule]4:50."
On appeal, plaintiff advances no fewer than fifteen legal arguments
seeking reversal of Judge Thornton's April 9, 2019 order. His arguments are
devoid of merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
2
Judge Thornton's December 1, 2017 order required plaintiff's filings to be
presented to her before being accepted for filing.
A-3686-18T2
3
"[C]ourts have the inherent authority, if not the obligation, to control the
filing of frivolous motions and to curtail 'harassing and vexatious litigation.'"
Zehl v. City of Elizabeth Bd. of Educ., 426 N.J. Super. 129, 139 (App. Div.
2012) (quoting Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, 333 N.J. Super. 385, 387, 391
(App. Div. 2000)). We have held "an Assignment judge can prevent the filing
of a complaint, or issuance of a summons thereon, when the plaintiff's prior
litigation demonstrates a pattern of frivolous pleadings." Rosenblum, 333 N.J.
Super. at 387.
Guided by these principles, we perceive no basis to disturb Judge
Thornton's well-reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.
A-3686-18T2
4