JACQUELINE NGUYEN VS. ESTELLE FLYNN LORD (L-4382-13, UNION 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0128-15T2
JACQUELINE NGUYEN and
DENNIS NGUYEN,1
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ESTELLE FLYNN LORD,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted January 11, 2017 – Decided October 19, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Union County, Docket No. L-4382-
13.
Jacqueline Nguyen and Dennis Nguyen,
appellants pro se.
Estelle Flynn Lord, respondent pro se.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
1
Although Dennis Nguyen appears in the caption, only Jacqueline
Nguyen signed and filed the Notice of Appeal required by Rule 2:5-
1(a). We are also guided by the information required to be
provided by an appellant pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(f)(3)(A).
This case originated in the Law Division as a legal
malpractice action filed pro se by plaintiff Jacqueline Nguyen
against her former attorney, defendant Estelle Flynn Lord. On
June 14, 2015, Judge Kenneth J. Grispin granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the legal
malpractice action. Judge Grispin found that the October 24, 2014
report submitted by plaintiff's expert, attorney Peter A. Ouda,
was a net opinion. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 4:49-2 which was heard and denied
in an order dated August 21, 2015. Judge Grispin placed his
reasons for denying the motion for reconsideration on the record
as required by Rule 1:7-4(a).
Plaintiff now appeals from the August 21, 2015 order denying
her motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
Consistent with the limited scope of the appeal, plaintiff
has provided the transcript of the reasons placed on the record
by Judge Grispin on August 21, 2015, in support of his decision
to deny the motion for reconsideration. We will thus limit our
review accordingly. Sikes v. Twp. of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super.
463, 465-66 (App. Div.) (declining to review trial ruling not
identified in notice of appeal), aff'd o.b., 138 N.J. 41 (1994).
At the oral argument for plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, Judge Grispin noted that plaintiff submitted a
2 A-0128-15T2
supplemental report from attorney Ouda2 dated June 14, 2015. Judge
Grispin characterized this submission as a
belated response to the motion filed by the
defendant, because in the second report it
specifically refers to the motion which had
been decided two days earlier. The . . .
second report, mentions the motion papers
filed on behalf of the defendant and takes
some pains to disagree with the motion and as
to why the first opinion, Mr. [Ouda's] first
opinion . . . was not a net opinion.
In response to Judge Grispin's request, plaintiff expressly
declined to offer any oral argument in rebuttal.
The record shows Judge Grispin thereafter articulated the
standard of review applicable to a motion for reconsideration and
reached the following conclusion:
The [c]ourt ruled that the first report, the
October 24, 2014 report, by Mr. [Ouda] was
insufficient. Ms. Nguyen, although she is
self-represented, has litigated several
different matters here and apparently also in
other counties. I believe she has a matter
pending in Middlesex County, and she obviously
had the matter in Somerset County, which was
the predicate for the allegations of
malpractice against the defendant here, Ms.
Lord. But even though she is self-
represented, she is required, and I have made
that clear to her on every occasion, to
comport with all of the rules. She took a
risk by submitting Mr. [Ouda's] report. It's
not necessarily her fault. She didn't - -
she’s not an expert, but she hired Mr. [Ouda]
2
The transcript of the oral argument session misspelled Mr. Ouda's
name. We will disregard this typographical error.
3 A-0128-15T2
as her expert. If he submitted a deficient
report, she lives or dies with that.
. . . .
[T]he entire process would be thrown into
chaos if reports could be amended, if
deficient reports could be amended to
hopefully comport with what would be a
satisfactory opinion once the expert or
putative expert determines that there is soon
to be a decision rendering his or her report
as a net opinion. It is clear, as I said
before, that Mr. [Ouda's] second report
specifically addressed the motion filed by
[defense counsel]. That is unacceptable, that
does not comport with fair play. This matter
the [c]ourt believes was filed a day late.3
And even if it weren't, on its merits there
is no reason to reconsider the [c]ourt's
opinion that Mr. [Ouda's] October 24, 2014
report was a net opinion and, consequently,
the motion is denied.
Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, we are bound to
uphold a trial court's decision to deny a motion for
reconsideration concerning the admissibility of an expert's
report. Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 52-53 (2015). An "abuse
of discretion only arises on demonstration of 'manifest error or
injustice[,]'" Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6, 20 (2008) (quoting
3
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 4:49-2 "shall be
served not later than 20 days after service of the judgment or
order upon all parties by the party obtaining it." Pursuant to
Rule 1:3-4(c), "[n]either the parties nor the court may . . .
enlarge the time specified by . . . [Rule] 4:49-2." See also
Eastampton Ctr., LLC v. Planning Bd. of Twp. of Eastampton, 354
N.J. Super. 171, 187 (App. Div. 2002).
4 A-0128-15T2
State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 572 (2005)), and occurs when the
trial judge's "decision is 'made without a rational explanation,
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.'" Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184,
197 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171
N.J. 561, 571 (2002)). Furthermore, as our colleague Judge
Jonathan Harris made clear nearly three decades ago:
Reconsideration should be utilized only for
those cases which fall into that narrow
corridor in which either 1) the Court has
expressed its decision based upon a palpably
incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is
obvious that the Court either did not
consider, or failed to appreciate the
significance of probative, competent
evidence.
[D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401
(Ch. Div. 1990).]
As the record we have taken the time to quote evidently shows,
there are no legal grounds to interfere with or modify Judge
Grispin's well-reasoned opinion.
Affirmed.
5 A-0128-15T2