PRAVIN PATEL VS. BHARAT MUKUND RAO (L-6475-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3556-19
PRAVIN PATEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BHARAT MUKUND RAO
and ALKESH S. PATEL,
Defendants-Respondents.
___________________________
Argued October 12, 2021 – Decided October 22, 2021
Before Judges Fasciale and Sumners.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-6475-19.
Patrick Papalia argued the cause for appellant (Archer
& Greiner, PC, attorneys; Tyler J. Wicks and Patrick
Papalia, on the briefs).
David F. Lyttle argued the cause for respondent Bharat
Mukund Rao.
Richard J. Kilstein argued the cause for respondent
Alkesh S. Patel (Kilstein & Kilstein, LLC, attorneys;
Richard J. Kilstein, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Pravin Patel (Pravin) 1 appeals—without leave of court—from
multiple orders: (1) a May 11, 2020 order dismissing his complaint (the
complaint)—without prejudice—against defendant Bharat Mukund Rao
(Bharat) and defendant Alkesh S. Patel (Alkesh) (collectively defendants),
pending appeal in a related Chancery Division case (the Chancery case);2 (2)
two orders dated January 24, 2020, staying this action (the Law Division case)
and directing defendants to file a "motion for joinder" with the then-pending
appeal in the Chancery case; and (3) a February 27, 2020 scheduling order
assigning the Law Division case to Track 4 as a complex commercial action.
Now that the Chancery case has been fully resolved, we dismiss the appeal.
1
By using the parties' first names, we mean no disrespect. We do so because
the last names of some of those involved in this appeal are the same.
2
We have since resolved the appeal in the Chancery case, which involved
Pravin's appeal from an order confirming a March 28, 2019 arbitrat ion award
regarding a dispute over the operation of "Key Products" (representing two
companies owned by Pravin and Christine Rao (Christine)). See Rao v. Patel,
No. A-000342-19 (App. Div. Nov. 4, 2020). We upheld the order confirming
the award, permitted legal fees against Pravin, and affirmed Pravin's argument
that the Chancery judge erred by denying discovery. Id., slip op. at 10. Pravin
did not file a petition for certification in the Chancery case.
A-3556-19
2
Doing so accords with the Law Division judge's remarks and enables final
resolution of the Law Division case.
The complaint has seven counts:3 (1) breach of contract against Alkesh;
(2) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing against Bharat; (3) breach of
contract against Bharat; (4) conspiracy against defendants; (5) breach of duty of
good faith and fair dealing against Alkesh; (6) fraud and misrepresentation
against defendants; and (7) professional negligence against Alkesh. The factual
background leading to Pravin's allegations in the Law Division case involves a
dispute over the operation of two companies owned by Pravin and Christine:
Key Products I, Inc. (KP-Paramus) and Key Products II, Inc. (KP-GS)
(collectively Key Products). The dispute led to the arbitration award against
Pravin, the Chancery case, and our affirmance of the order confirming the award.
As to the parties in the two cases, Bharat is a party in both the Chancery and
Law Division case, Christine is only a party in the Chancery case, and Alkesh is
only a party in the Law Division case, although Alkesh acted as an "independent
auditor" during the arbitration of the Chancery case.
On January 24, 2020, the Law Division judge admitted—after stating that
he was not sure if we would grant a joinder motion—that if we did not, then "I
3
One of the counts in the complaint was misnumbered.
A-3556-19
3
can review this matter anew at that time." No party moved for "joinder." And
at a case management conference on May 11, 2020, the judge told the parties,
"Upon final ruling of [our judgment in the Chancery case], the parties may move
[before] the [c]ourt by motion to continue [the Law Division] matter." That is
because he had previously stayed the Law Division case. After we rendered our
judgment in the Chancery Division case, no party moved before us to dismiss
this appeal or remand for further proceedings consistent with the Law Division
judge's remarks. Instead, the parties sought resolution of the legal issues before
us in the first instance. 4
Pravin did not prevail in the arbitration and an arbitration award was
entered against him, which included counsel fees. The Chancery judge
confirmed the award, which we upheld. Pravin's counsel unsuccessfully sought
before the arbitrator reconsideration of the arbitration award. He argued that the
award should be vacated because Alkesh was not independent. According to
Pravin's counsel, Alkesh had a previous, undisclosed relationship with Bharat
and Christine. Pravin's counsel explained that he only consented to use Alkesh
4
Some of the legal issues raised before us, and not adjudicated by the Law
Division judge, included whether resolution of the Chancery case entitled
defendants to a dismissal of the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), or grounded on
principles of res judicata, the entire controversy doctrine, collateral estoppel, or
joinder under Rule 4:28-1(a).
A-3556-19
4
as an auditor in the arbitration because Bharat and Christine had stated that they
had no prior relationship or dealings with Alkesh.
After the arbitrator denied reconsideration, Bharat and Christine moved
before the Chancery judge to confirm the award. Pravin's counsel cross-moved
to vacate the arbitration award and permit discovery because of the "secret and
hidden" relationship between Bharat, Christine, and Alkesh. He contended that
during the arbitration, he had "strenuously objected" to Alkesh "continu[ing] in
his capacity as an auditor due to the [purported] undisclosed relationship with
Bharat's brother and connection to [Bharat and Christine]." Pravin counsel's
contended that Alkesh was not independent but rather acted like someone who
opined more like an expert for Bharat and Christine, on which Pravin's counsel
sought discovery. The Chancery judge confirmed the award and denied
discovery.5
On appeal, Pravin makes multiple arguments on the merits that the judge
never adjudicated. But the Law Division judge never had the opportunity to
adjudicate these issues because after finality in the Chancery case, no party acted
on the Law Division judge's remarks that he "review the matter anew," or to
5
Pravin previously argued the Chancery judge erred by refusing his request for
discovery. See Rao, slip op. at 6. We rejected that contention. Id., slip op. at
10.
A-3556-19
5
"move [before] the [c]ourt by motion to continue [the Law Division] matter."
The parties may now do that. 6
Appeal dismissed.
6
The parties could have voluntarily dismissed the appeal or sought a remand in
accordance with the judge's invitation to proceed before him upon final
conclusion in the Chancery case.
A-3556-19
6