NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1357-22 A-1360-22
MICHAEL TAFFARO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PARVIN "PAT" MOAYER,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Submitted November 7, 2024 – Decided January 24, 2025
Before Judges Rose and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket Nos. DC-008578-20 and DC-012301-21.
Michael Taffaro, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In these appeals, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes
of issuing a single opinion, plaintiff Michael Taffaro challenges various Special Civil Part orders, ultimately dismissing with prejudice his complaints against
defendant Parvin "Pat" Moayer. He also seeks a change of venue. Before the
trial court and this court, plaintiff has represented himself.
In Docket No. A-1360-22, referenced by plaintiff as his "jewelry case,"
plaintiff seeks reversal of a November 18, 2022 order denying his motion to
vacate the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, and the underlying orders
issued on: July 21, 2022, dismissing his complaint without prejudice; November
1, 2022, denying his motion to "restore" his subpoenas; and November 16, 2022,
issuing a litigation injunction against him. Plaintiff raises the following points
of error,1 which we reprint without alteration:
Brief Point I:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE "WITH PREJUDICE" DESPITE PREVIOUSLY DISMISSING IT "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" AND COUNTER TO THE COURT RULES COMMANDING JURY CASES TO BE "HEARD ON THE MERITS" ACCORDING TO COURT RULE...? (JUDGE MONAGHAN KNOWS IT)
1 Plaintiff's electronically filed merits brief is twenty-six-pages and contains nine-points. The hard copy of his filed merits brief is forty-two pages and contains ten points. We have considered plaintiff's additional assertions, including a new argument raised under point IX in the hard copy of his merits brief. A-1357-22 2 Brief Point II:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON DISMISSED MY CASE BY ERRONEOUSLY BASING HIS DISMISSAL ON MY NON-APPEARANCE WHICH HE SPECIFIED IN HIS ORDER
Brief Point III:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE DUE TO MERE "AUDIO PROBLEMS" WITH THE COURT'S AUDIO EQUIPMENT
Brief Point IV:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE BY DENYING ME THE BASIC RIGHT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THEREFORE, DISOBEYING N.J. COURT RULE 1:9 AS EXPLAINED IN HIS UNFACTUAL RULING ON NOVEMBER 1, 2022 IN RESPONSE TO MY MOTION TO RESTORE WITNESSES
Brief Point V:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THE THEFT CASE BY BASING HIS DECISION ON FALSITIES, AN INCOMPLETE CRIMINAL AND LITIGATION HISTORY AND "AUDIO PROBLEMS" WITHIN HIS UNFACTUAL 4-PAGE SUA SPONTE OPINION ON NOVEMBER 1, 2022
A-1357-22 3 Brief Point VI:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE BY IGNORING MY LETTERS, ADJOURNMENT REQUESTS AND PENDING MOTIONS, THEREFORE, DISOBEYING THE PRECEDENT OF "R.H. LYTLE VS. SWING-RITE DOOR CO." WHICH DEMANDS FOR DISCOVERY COMPLETION
Brief Point VII:
JUDGE BONNIE J. MIZDOL ERRONEOUSLY OVERRULED PRESIDING JUDGE PETER E. DOYNE'S ORDER WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY DENIED WITNESS DANIEL NG'S MOTION FOR LITIGATION INJUNCTION AGAINST ME IN 2012
Brief Point VIII:
JUDGE BONNIE J. MIZDOL MADE A SUA SPONTE OPINION WHICH ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDES THAT THE TWO PRESENT CASES AGAINST PARVIN "PAT" MOAYER RISE TO THE LEVEL OF LITIGATION INJUNCTION AND ROSENBLUM
Brief Point IX:
JUDGE BONNIE J. MIZDOL DISMISSED MY CASE WITH MANY MISFACTS THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED IN HER 40-PAGE OPINION
Brief Point X:
THERE WAS CUMULATIVE ERROR IN JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON'S OPINION DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2022; HIS DISMISSAL ON JULY 21,
A-1357-22 4 2022 DUE TO AUDIO PROBLEMS; HIS DISMISSAL ON NOVEMBER 18, 2022 AND JUDGE BONNIE J. MIZDOL'S OPINION DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2022 WHICH LED TO AN UNJUST RESULT AND CAUSED THE PLAINTIFF TO RECEIVE LITIGATION INJUNCTION AND BE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR JURY TRIAL IN THIS CASE
In Docket No. A-1357-22, designated by plaintiff as the "defamation
case," plaintiff seeks reversal of a November 14, 2022 order denying his motion
to vacate the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice and dismissing his
action with prejudice for failure to appear at trial. Plaintiff raises the following
points for our consideration, which we reiterate verbatim:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE "WITH PREJUDICE" DESPITE PREVIOUSLY DISMISSING IT "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" AND COUNTER TO THE COURT RULES COMMANDING JURY CASES TO BE "HEARD ON THE MERITS" ACCORDING TO COURT RULE...? (JUDGE MONAGHAN KNOWS IT)
Brief Point II:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE BY BASING HIS DECISION ON FALSITIES, AN INCOMPLETE CRIMINAL AND LITIGATION HISTORY AND "AUDIO PROBLEMS" WITHIN HIS UNFACTUAL 3-PAGE OPINION
A-1357-22 5 Brief Point III:
THIS DEFAMATION CASE WAS FILED ONE FULL YEAR AFTER THE UNDERLYING THEFT CASE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SCHEDULED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER TO AVOID CONFUSION, NOT FORCE PLAINTIFF TO RESUBPOENA WITNESSES AND PROVIDE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS (Not Raised Below)
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE BY DENYING ME THE BASIC RIGHT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THEREFORE, DISOBEYING N.J. COURT RULE 1:9 AS EXPLAINED IN HIS UNFACTUAL RULING
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED MY CASE BY IGNORING MY LETTERS, ADJOURNMENT REQUESTS AND TWO PENDING MOTIONS ("MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY" AND "MOTION TO ENFORCE WAIVING OF FILING FEES"), THEREFORE, DISOBEYING THE PRECEDENT OF "R.H. LYTLE VS. SWING-RITE DOOR CO." WHICH DEMANDS FOR DISCOVERY COMPLETION
Brief Point VI:
JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED THE ONLY SUBPOENAED WITNESS, ANTHONY R. SUAREZ, TO AVOID TESTIFYING WITHOUT FILING A
A-1357-22 6 "MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA" OR EVEN WRITING A LETTER JUST AS THE OTHER FIVE WITNESSES DID IN THE UNDERLYING THEFT CASE (Not Raised Below)
THERE WAS CUMULATIVE ERROR IN JUDGE ROBERT C. WILSON'S SIMILAR, ERRONEOUS THREE-PAGE OPINIONS IN BOTH THE THEFT SUIT AND THIS SUIT WHICH LED TO AN UNJUST RESULT AND CAUSED THE PLAINTIFF TO BE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR JURY TRIAL IN THIS CASE
We reject these contentions and affirm all orders under review.
I.
Plaintiff's nearly two-decade litigation history in the Bergen County
courts engendered the November 16, 2022 order imposing restraints on him as
a vexatious litigant pursuant to Rosenblum v. Borough of Closter, 333 N.J.
Super. 385 (App. Div. 2000), and is detailed in twenty pages of the
accompanying thirty-seven-page written decision of then Bergen County
Assignment Judge Bonnie J. Mizdol.2 We recount the facts and events in some
detail to lend context to the orders under review.
2 Judge Mizdol has since retired from the Judiciary. Despite the breadth of her recitation, Judge Mizdol noted the history was incomplete because not all of plaintiff's matters were captured in eCourts, the Judiciary's online filing system .
A-1357-22 7 A. Prior Restraints Against Plaintiff
As Judge Mizdol observed in her November 16, 2022 decision, following
a "contentious probate dispute over their parents' estate," in 2004, a municipal
court judge issued an order barring plaintiff from contacting his sister, Susan
Taffaro. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff posted a Craigslist advertisement in
Susan's3 name, soliciting strangers to break into her home and sexually assault
her. Plaintiff claimed his acquaintances, Daniel Ng and Redner Portela,
accessed his computer and created the post. Plaintiff was prosecuted for fourth-
degree contempt, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(a), eventually convicted by a jury, and
sentenced to a non-custodial probation in November 2011.
The next month, the trial judge in the criminal case issued a no-contact
order, prohibiting plaintiff from contacting Susan, her husband and child ;
plaintiff's brother Vincent Taffaro; Ng; and Portela. Two years later, plaintiff
violated the no-contact order and was held in contempt. In her decision, Judge
Mizdol noted the trial judge "barr[ed p]laintiff from filing any criminal or civil
litigation against any of the persons named in the 2011 no-contact order unless
he [wa]s represented by a licensed attorney who has knowledge of the no
3 Because some of the parties share the same surname, we use first names for clarity. We intend no disrespect in doing so.
A-1357-22 8 [-]contact orders." The trial judge also required plaintiff "to undergo a
psychiatric examination to determine his mental status and ability to understand
and obey court orders."
On appeal, we affirmed plaintiff's conviction but remanded for
clarification of the order prohibiting him from contacting members of his family.
State v. Taffaro, No. A-1911-11 (App. Div. Apr. 14, 2014). On remand, the
judge limited the no-contact order to Susan, her husband and child, and Vincent.
B. Prior Actions
Plaintiff also litigated matters with other family members. In 2003,
plaintiff's uncle, Thomas Taffaro, filed criminal charges against plaintiff
following receipt of what Thomas deemed threatening correspondence from
plaintiff. Thomas later moved to another state and withdrew the charges. Six
years later, in 2009, plaintiff filed a Special Civil Part complaint against
Thomas, asserting malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Plaintiff demanded $15,000 in damages, the Special Civil Part's
jurisdictional limit.
In her decision, Judge Mizdol found many of the interrogatories
propounded on Thomas were unrelated to plaintiff's action and, as such, "were
A-1357-22 9 clearly intended to harass Thomas." Some notable examples cited by the judge
include:
• Does your son still employ illegal immigrants at his company?
• How's Aunt Irene and Brita doin'? How many weeks did it take before Brita threw you right out? Do you feel that your behavior and dastardly deeds have caused to you have your wife, girlfriend, and nephew throw you out of their homes and lives? Are you still in denial?
• Do you feel like you've been marooned on a deserted island far away from your friends and family? Describe in detail why you feel this way and how it happened.
The trial judge dismissed plaintiff's complaint for reasons that are not
relevant here. We reversed and remanded the matter for trial. Taffaro v.
Taffaro, No. A-5307-09 (App. Div. Dec. 5, 2011). Judge Mizdol noted on
remand, "[t]hirteen years after his uncle filed a police report against him
[p]laintiff continue[d] litigation against his then-85-year-old uncle" and served
additional "frivolous interrogatories." Ultimately, another judge dismissed
plaintiff's action after trial.
Also in 2003, plaintiff and Vincent filed criminal cross-complaints in
municipal court following an argument at a bar in Ridgefield. Plaintiff was
convicted of harassment; Vincent was acquitted of unspecified charges. In
A-1357-22 10 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging "felony perjury" against Scott Bartone,
a witness who testified during the municipal court case. After dismissing the
complaint, plaintiff refiled the lawsuit against Bartone and added an allegation
against the bar. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint on the defendants'
unopposed motion to dismiss, plaintiff appealed, and we affirmed. Taffaro v.
Colonial Bar, No. A-1997-10 (App. Div. Dec. 23, 2011).
In 2007, plaintiff filed a request under the Open Public Records Act,
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, with the Ridgefield Building Department "seeking the
complete building permit file" for Susan's residence. In his application, plaintiff
falsely certified he was not convicted of an indictable offense. Plaintiff was
charged with false swearing, the charge was downgraded to a disorderly persons
offense, and he was acquitted by the municipal court. Plaintiff's ensuing
complaint against the Borough of Ridgefield and its mayor, asserting malicious
prosecution and other charges, was removed to federal court and dismissed on
summary judgment.
In 2012, plaintiff filed a Special Civil complaint against Susan, asserting
claims for conversion, invasion of privacy, and negligent and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff claimed Susan removed various notes
A-1357-22 11 from his mother's grave. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed on summary
judgment.
C. The Jewelry Case
In her November 16, 2022 decision, Judge Mizdol also summarized the
allegations and events concerning the present actions. The judge noted in July
2020, plaintiff filed a complaint and jury demand in the jewelry case, asserting
claims for theft, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress
against defendant. Plaintiff asserted he gave defendant jewelry valued at
$1,709.64 to weigh and return to him, but defendant melted the jewelry "without
his consent and offered him $880 for the value of the melted jewelry."
In her counseled answer, defendant asserted she never met plaintiff and
never conducted business with him. Defendant asserted plaintiff's complaint
was frivolous.
During the course of discovery, plaintiff moved to compel answers to
interrogatories. Among other inquires, plaintiff asked, verbatim:
• Has the Defendant ever lied in any Answer while being sued in a prior civil matter? Would the written and certified lies that you presented in your Answer to this matter be your first counts of felony perjury . . . committed?
• Are you currently on any medication? If so, what? What is/are the dosage amount(s)?
A-1357-22 12 Judge Mizdol found in the months that followed, among other acts,
plaintiff withdrew his motion to compel; criticized defendant for failing to settle
the matter; threatened to "warn every member of the gym," where he claimed
both parties were members, "about what she did to [him], just for starters";
accused defendant and Judge Joseph G. Monaghan "of neglect, disobedience,
and abuse"; filed another motion to compel "responsive" answers to
interrogatories and admissions; and accused defendant and her attorney of
perjury and contempt. Plaintiff also subpoenaed Susan, Vincent, Ng, Portela,
and Bartone to testify at trial.
Trial was scheduled for July 21, 2022, before Judge Robert C. Wilson. 4
In March 2022, defense counsel notified plaintiff via correspondence that
defendant intended to request the court take judicial notice of eighteen civil,
criminal, and bankruptcy matters in which plaintiff was a party and "additional
evidence," including text messages of two individuals defendant intended to call
as trial witnesses. There is no indication in the letter that defendant intended to
call any of the parties named in those matters as witnesses in the jewelry case.
Two weeks prior to trial, Susan and Vincent sent a letter to Judge Wilson
advising they had no knowledge of the jewelry case and the orders prohibited
4 Judge Wilson has since retired from the Judiciary. A-1357-22 13 plaintiff from contacting them. Claiming the subpoenas constituted "continual
harassment from [plaintiff]," Susan and Vincent asked to be excused from
testifying at trial.
Bartone similarly sought to be excused as a trial witness. In his letter to
Judge Wilson, Bartone stated he did not know defendant and did not have
contact with plaintiff "since 2010/2011 when [plaintiff] tried to sue [him] in
civil court." Bartone asserted, plaintiff "has a history of using the court system
to harass [him]."
Ng formally moved to quash the subpoena. In his opposition, plaintiff
accused Ng of committing perjury during his contempt trial.
In her November 16, 2022 decision, Judge Mizdol noted plaintiff claimed
he "intend[ed] to use the testimony of his subpoenaed witnesses to validate his
good character and credibility." Judge Mizdol found to the contrary and,
regardless, plaintiff would not be permitted to present testimony about his good
character in this action where he asserted defendant melted his jewelry without
his consent.
On July 21, 2022, the parties appeared for a virtual trial before Judge
Wilson. During the calendar call, plaintiff's microphone was muted, but he
gestured that he was ready. That same day, the case was recalled for trial another
A-1357-22 14 two times; both times plaintiff's microphone remained muted. Finding plaintiff
failed to unmute his microphone, Judge Wilson concluded plaintiff failed to
appear at trial and dismissed the case without prejudice. Notably, however, on
August 23, 2022, Judge Joseph G. Monaghan granted plaintiff's motion to vacate
the dismissal.
Thereafter, on October 5, 2022, Portela sent correspondence to Judge
Monaghan claiming he had no knowledge of plaintiff's action, had no contact
with plaintiff for more than ten years, and did not know defendant. Portela
asserted it was odd that plaintiff wanted him "to testify on his behalf against a
defendant that [Portela had] never met."
Days later, on October 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Restore All
My Witnesses that Judge Robert C. Wilson Let Escape (Audio Problems !)."
Although plaintiff acknowledged court orders prohibited his contact with some
of his subpoenaed witnesses, plaintiff claimed the witnesses were necessary for
trial. Plaintiff also claimed, without supporting certifications or documentation,
"[i]t was confirmed to be the court's audio that failed as [he] . . . appeared
numerous times before and after this dismissal with no issues."
Also on October 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a "Motion to Complete Edited
Case Jacket." Plaintiff asserted many of the documents he filed were not
A-1357-22 15 "scanned into the case jacket." Plaintiff claimed, "[t]his amounts to Evidence
Tampering ([N.J.S.A.] 2C:28-6) (concealing documents in a judicial
proceeding) and Official Misconduct ([N.J.S.A.] 2C:30-2)."
Shortly thereafter, on October 17, 2022, plaintiff filed a "Motion for a
Temporary Stay Due to Several Unresolved Motions and Six Suppressed
Witnesses." Plaintiff asserted, as Judge Mizdol noted in her decision, "Judge
. . . Wilson created an escape for corrupt and very powerful public servant Susan
. . . and her perjurers to slither through. He used a pathetic excuse to protect
them from testifying."
We glean from the record the jewelry case trial was scheduled for October
18, 2022. However, the case was dismissed for plaintiff's failure to appear at
the calendar call.
On October 28, 2022, Judge Monaghan denied plaintiff's motion to stay,
and denied without prejudice plaintiff's motion to "restore" his witnesses and
complete the edited jacket, subject to plaintiff moving to restore the complaint.
Plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal on October 28, 2022.
Pertinent to this appeal, on November 1, 2022, Judge Monaghan denied
with prejudice plaintiff's motion to restore his witnesses. In a three-page rider
annexed to the order, the judge found the "belligerent nature of the caption of
A-1357-22 16 the instant motion" evinced its lack of merit. Citing plaintiff's "litigation and
criminal history," the judge concluded:
It is apparent that the five subpoenas submitted by [p]laintiff are intended merely to harass and inconvenience the subpoenaed parties; [p]laintiff has made no showing that any of the subpoenaed parties have any knowledge of the melted jewelry. Further, two of the subpoenaed parties, Susan and Vincent . . . have "no[-]contact orders" in place which prevent [p]laintiff from communicating with them in any form. This matter has been ongoing for over two years and has involved the filing of a considerable number of motions. The instant matter has not only proven to be a waste of judicial resources, but a blatant scheme to further harass those subpoenaed for a cause of action which is entirely fallacious.
This [c]ourt will not be the avenue for harassment of parties protected by restraining orders and shall sanction any further transgressions by [p]laintiff, if so moved.
In her November 16, 2022 decision, Judge Mizdol noted Judge Monaghan
reiterated his earlier finding that on the July 21, 2022 trial date, plaintiff
"intentionally muted his audio in an attempt to force a rescheduling of the trial
date and force his subpoenaed witnesses to reappear at a later date as a form of
continued harassment." Judge Mizdol therefore considered the jewelry case
dismissed with prejudice.
A-1357-22 17 Two days after Judge Mizdol issued the November 16, 2022 litigation
injunction, Judge Wilson entered the November 18, 2022 order granting
defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The handwritten notation at the
bottom of the order states, "See Judge Mizdol's Decision of 11/16/22."
D. The Defamation Case
Meanwhile, in August 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint and jury demand
against defendant asserting claims for defamation, theft, intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false light. Plaintiff asserted in
response to his jewelry complaint, defendant "retaliated by filing a frivolous"
counterclaim and "abus[ing] the legal system by using defamation and perjury
to get away with the [t]heft . . . therefore, digging a deeper hole for herself."
Plaintiff demanded $15,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant
answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim, asserting plaintiff's lawsuit
was frivolous as she never met him or conducted any business with him.
In the months that followed, plaintiff propounded on defendant
interrogatories; moved to compel answers; and failed to appear for trial on April
12, 2022, resulting in dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. On June 24,
2022, Judge Monaghan vacated the dismissal. On July 29, 2022, another judge
denied plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories. In August 2022,
A-1357-22 18 plaintiff moved to reconsider the July 29, 2022 order. The following month,
plaintiff filed a "Motion for a Temporary Stay Due to Incomplete Discovery,
Unresolved Motions, Suppressed Witnesses, and Lack of Fundamental
Fairness."
On September 20, 2022, plaintiff's action was dismissed without prejudice
for failure to appear at trial. As Judge Mizdol noted in her November 16, 2022
decision, in his ensuing motion to vacate dismissal of his complaint, plaintiff set
forth no reasons for his failure to appear. Instead, he cast blame on Judges
Wilson and Monaghan.
Ultimately, on November 14, 2022, Judge Wilson denied plaintiff's
motion to vacate the dismissal. In his opinion, Judge Wilson recounted
plaintiff's litigation history and found in the jewelry and defamation cases,
plaintiff expended more than one year "harassing [d]efendant with irrelevant
discovery requests" and sought three adjournments of the trial date. Noting the
jewelry case was dismissed with prejudice because plaintiff "us[ed] it as an
avenue to harass [d]efendant and various others" via subpoenas, Judge Wilson
concluded the allegations in the defamation matter were moot.
A-1357-22 19 II.
Against that protracted litigation background, we turn to the orders under
review in both appeals.
A. Jewelry Case
1. November 16, 2022 order
In points VII, VIII, and IX, plaintiff raises overlapping challenges to
Judge Mizdol's November 16, 2022 order. Plaintiff argues Judge Mizdol
erroneously: analyzed the Rosenblum factors; overruled a prior assignment
judge's 2012 order denying Ng's application to deem plaintiff a vexatious litigant
under the collateral estoppel doctrine; based her decision on incomplete
information; dismissed his complaints without hearing testimony; and made
factual mistakes that command correction. Plaintiff's contentions are
unavailing.
We review orders imposing sanctions against litigants who file frivolous
papers for abuse of discretion. Parish v. Parish, 412 N.J. Super. 39, 51 (App.
Div. 2010). An assertion that a filing is frivolous may be reviewed by an
assignment judge "with an understanding of the results of past litigation and
similar allegations which have turned out to be frivolous." Rosenblum, 333 N.J.
Super. at 391; see also R. 1:33-4(a). When issuing a sanction order for frivolous
A-1357-22 20 litigation under Rosenblum, 333 N.J. Super. at 396-97, a judge must: evaluate
"the volume and disposition of the cases" filed by the litigant; "address the
allegations in the present complaints"; "give reasons for [the] conclusion that
the complaints may not be filed"; "be assured that more traditional sanctions
will not protect against frivolous litigation"; and "review the new complaint to
be assured that a meritorious claim is not suppressed." See also Parish, 412 N.J.
Super. at 54.
Restrictions against a litigant's filing of prospective motions, such as
Judge Mizdol's November 16, 2022 order, are appropriate in certain
circumstances. See D'Amore v. D'Amore, 186 N.J. Super. 525, 530 (App. Div.
1982) (holding a trial court has the power to enjoin prospective harassing
litigation). "However, 'that power must be exercised consistently with the
fundamental right of the public to access to the courts in order to secure
adjudication of claims on their merits.'" Rosenblum, 333 N.J. Super. at 396
(quoting D'Amore, 186 N.J. Super. at 530). In reviewing whether a filing is
frivolous, an assignment judge must "do more than conclude [a] plaintiff's prior
complaints were frivolous. The [a]ssignment [j]udge must be assured that more
traditional sanctions will not protect against frivolous litigation and must review
A-1357-22 21 the new complaint to be assured that a meritorious claim is not suppressed."
Ibid.
Having reviewed the record with these legal standards in view, we discern
no reason to disturb the November 16, 2022 order. As detailed in Judge Mizdol's
comprehensive written decision, plaintiff's protracted litigation history
demonstrates a pattern of frivolous and meritless litigation designed to harass
the parties and witnesses. The judge issued a well-reasoned opinion reviewing
the constitutional and public policy implications of limiting plaintiff's filings,
ultimately concluding that such an order was permissible and necessary pursuant
to Rosenblum.
Nor are we persuaded by plaintiff's claim that collateral estoppel barred
Judge Mizdol's order because her predecessor, Judge Peter E. Doyne, 5 declined
to issue a litigation injunction against plaintiff in 2012. We glean from the
record Ng moved for a litigation order in plaintiff's Special Civil Part case
against him.6 Although plaintiff included Judge Doyne's order in his 387-page
appellate appendix, he failed to provide the transcript of the judge's oral decision
5 Judge Doyne has since retired from the Judiciary. 6 On appeal, we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against Ng pursuant to the litigation privilege. Taffaro v. Ng, No. A-1946-12 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2014). A-1357-22 22 issued on October 12, 2012. See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I). In any event, Judge Mizdol's
decision is grounded in more recent litigation involving different parties.
Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply. See In re Liquidation of
Integrity Ins. Co./Celotex Asbestos Tr., 214 N.J. 51, 68 (2013) (reiterating
"[n]otably, the court does not apply collateral estoppel when 'the transactions,
although "similar in nature and close in time," did not involve the individual
cases at issue' in the current litigation" (quoting In re McWhorter, 887 F.2d
1564, 1568 (11th Cir. 1989))).
We also discern no merit in plaintiff's contentions that Judge Mizdol's
decision contains factual inaccuracies and omissions, particularly regarding her
description of plaintiff's litigation history. Plaintiff's claims consist of self-
serving and unsupported statements, largely aimed at relitigating his prior
history. But plaintiff fails to negate Judge Mizdol's finding that his prior filings
were in fact frivolous.
Moreover, we reject plaintiff's argument that Judge Mizdol erroneously
dismissed his complaints without hearing testimony. Citing the extensive
litigation history, the judge found "[f]or the past two decades, [p]laintiff has
tormented the lives of his family members and others whom he has decided to
pester with incessant litigation . . . mak[ing] it abundantly clear that [p]laintiff
A-1357-22 23 files suits for the purpose of harassing his victims." Live testimony was
unnecessary to reach that conclusion. By way of analogy, in Rosenblum, we
recognized the liberality required by our Rules of Court when construing a
plaintiff's claims for relief under Rule 4:5-2, but we further declared, "that does
not mean that the allegations cannot be reviewed by the [a]ssignment [j]udge
with an understanding of the results of past litigation and similar allegations
which have turned out to be frivolous, suggesting that the present complaint –
particularly without detailed specificity – may well be the same." 333 N.J.
Super. at 391.
2. November 18, 2022 order
We similarly reject plaintiff's challenges to the November 18, 2022 order,
alluded to in point I, i.e., Judge Wilson dismissed his complaint without a
hearing. As noted, the November 18 order was issued by Judge Wilson and
relied on the reasons set forth by Judge Mizdol in her November 16 order.
In her decision, Judge Mizdol determined neither action had merit as the
causes of action were "specious" or "non-cognizable." To arrive at this
conclusion, Judge Mizdol cited plaintiff's complaint, defendant's answer, and
the various motions filed during the pendency of the case. Although plaintiff
does not expressly argue there were genuine issues of material fact precluding
A-1357-22 24 the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice, because Judge Mizdol considered
matters outside the four corners of the complaint, her decision is akin to a
summary judgment dismissal. Our review is therefore de novo. See
Comprehensive Neurosurgical, PC v. Valley Hosp., 257 N.J. 33, 71 (2024).
Our review of the record reveals, in his complaint, plaintiff asserted
defendant "hoodwinked" him by asking plaintiff "to allow her to weigh three
pieces of [his] gold jewelry in order to assess their value." Instead, the next day
defendant allegedly told plaintiff she melted down his jewelry without his
consent and the value was now $880. Plaintiff asserted the "true worth" of his
jewelry was $1,709.64, and one item had "sentimental value" as it was "a gift
from an old girlfriend." Plaintiff sought $15,000 in compensatory damages. As
Judge Mizdol noted, in her answer and counterclaim, defendant averred she
never met plaintiff nor conducted any business with him.
As Judge Mizdol further observed, to support his claim, plaintiff
propounded thirty-five interrogatories and two sets of admissions, many of
which "b[ore] no relation whatsoever to the alleged melted jewelry." Moreover,
while plaintiff maintains he had witnesses and other evidence that supported his
claim, in response to defendant's discovery, plaintiff only identified two
A-1357-22 25 potential witnesses – Susan and Ng – both of whom assert they have no
knowledge of the allegations. And plaintiff is not permitted to contact Susan.
Further, in plaintiff's responses to defendant's interrogatories, he claimed
defendant "lied to [him] and snuck out the door with [his] jewelry," yet he
included in his appendix a purported handwritten receipt from defendant. That
document is a handwritten note with the address and phone number for "Pat
Jewelry Creations," without any mention of jewelry received from plaintiff, a
description of the work to be performed, or any other information that would
support a claim that defendant converted or otherwise stole plaintiff's property.
Thus, based on our review of the record, we discern no error in Judge
Mizdol's conclusion, "[t]he evidence is clear and convincing that, had plaintiff
truly brought suit to recover the value of the melted jewelry, there would have
been some proof to that claim" aside from "[p]laintiff's own contrived
statements." Even if plaintiff had expressly argued genuine issues of fact
precluded dismissal of his complaint, "[c]ompetent opposition [to summary
judgment] requires 'competent evidential material' beyond mere 'speculation'
and 'fanciful arguments.'" Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc., 404 N.J. Super.
415, 426 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting Merchs. Express Money Ord. Co. v. Sun
Nat'l Bank, 374 N.J. Super. 556, 563 (App. Div. 2005)).
A-1357-22 26 3. November 1, 2022 order
In points IV and V, plaintiff argues Judge Wilson's denial of his motion
deprived plaintiff of his ability to subpoena witnesses and was based on multiple
factual errors. Plaintiff's argument is best considered as a challenge to a court's
decision to quash a subpoena. Our review is therefore deferential. See Platkin
v. Smith & Wesson Sales Co., 474 N.J. Super. 476, 489 (App. Div. 2023). That
is because "[d]ecisions regarding 'discovery matters are upheld unless they
constitute an abuse of discretion.'" Ibid. (citing Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New
Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011)).
Plaintiff argues Judge Wilson's decision violates Rule 1:9-1, which
permits the court to issue subpoenas. However, under Rule 1:9-2, the court "may
quash or modify [a] subpoena or notice if compliance would be unreasonable or
oppressive."
We are satisfied Judge Wilson's decision is amply supported by the record.
For example, Judge Wilson detailed plaintiff's prior criminal history and the
resulting orders that prohibited contact with Susan and Vincent, whom he had
subpoenaed in the jewelry case. As the judge noted, Susan and Vincent
specifically asked to be excused from testifying in view of the "numerous no
contact orders filed for their benefit." Judge Wilson further found Susan,
A-1357-22 27 Vincent, and Ng advised the court they had no knowledge of plaintiff's
allegations against defendant and the subpoenas were intended to harass them.
Judge Wilson also noted "[t]here is no proffer of how the action relates to the
five subpoenas that are the subject of [the] instant motion." Accordingly, he
concluded the subpoenas "[we]re intended merely to harass and inconvenience
the subpoenaed parties."
Under these circumstances, we discern no basis to conclude Judge Wilson
abused his discretion in denying plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff subpoenaed five
witnesses, none of whom had any relevant knowledge of the gravamen of his
complaint and at least two of whom had no contact orders against him.
4. July 21, 2022 order
Little need be said regarding plaintiff's challenges to the July 21, 2022
order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for his failure to unmute his
microphone and appear at trial. In essence, plaintiff argues he appeared for trial,
but experienced audio problems on his computer and, as such, Judge Wilson
should have explored other options, such as allowing him to dial-in or appear in
person. Because Judge Monaghan vacated the July 21, 2022 order on August
23, 2022, plaintiff's argument is moot. See Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.,
382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) ("An issue is 'moot' when the
A-1357-22 28 decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the
existing controversy." (quoting N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State Dep't
of Treasury, Div. of Tax'n, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 (Tax 1984))).
To the extent not specifically addressed, plaintiff's remaining contentions
in the jewelry case lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
B. The Defamation Case – November 14, 2022 order
In his rider to the November 14, 2022 order, Judge Wilson found plaintiff
"provide[d] no reason whatsoever for his failure to appear for trial . . . on
September 15, 2022." 7 After summarizing plaintiff's litigation history, the judge
found:
Via the instant matter and the jewelry case, [p]laintiff has spent the past year plus harassing [d]efendant with irrelevant discovery requests and has sought the postponement of three . . . trial dates in this matter. Plaintiff has indicated in several documents submitted to the [c]ourt that he is upset that this matter is moving quicker than the jewelry case. This is entirely due to the way [p]laintiff dragged out the jewelry case, including seeking the adjournment or outright failing to appear for eight trial dates, as well as filing several motions to compel discovery, all of which were denied or denied in part.
7 We glean from the record the trial date was September 20, 2022. Accordingly, September 15, 2022 appears to be a scrivener's error.
A-1357-22 29 Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that he refuses to try the instant matter until the jewelry case has concluded. This is presumably because [p]laintiff's cause of action in the instant matter stems solely from the [a]nswer filed by [d]efendant in the jewelry case, or potentially because he wants to preserve this avenue for harassment until he may no longer do so via the jewelry case. However, the [c]ourt dismissed the jewelry case with prejudice, as [p]laintiff had no intention of ever[] trying or settling the case and was merely using it as an avenue to harass [d]efendant and various others whom [p]laintiff had subpoenaed into the case. As such, this case is now without merit, and vacating the [c]ourt's prior dismissal will do nothing more than provide [p]laintiff with, an avenue to harass [d]efendant further and subpoena parties into a matter which has no merit whatsoever.
In his merits brief, plaintiff advances many of the same objections to
Judge Wilson's rider accompanying the November 14, 2022 order as raised
against the judges who issued the orders in the jewelry case. Plaintiff argues:
he was entitled to a trial on the merits of his complaint; Judge Wilson's decision
contained factual errors; Judge Wilson deprived him of his right to subpo ena
witnesses; because the jewelry case was filed first that matter should have been
listed for trial prior to the defamation case; and the judge erroneously dismissed
his case while his motions to enforce a fee waiver and for a stay were pending.
Having considered plaintiff's contentions in view of the applicable law,
we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
A-1357-22 30 opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed
by Judge Wilson in his cogent decision in view of the protracted litigation
history and the procedural posture of the present matter.
C. Cumulative Errors
Lastly, we reject plaintiff's contentions, raised in both appeals, that the
cumulative effect of the motion judges' alleged errors warrants reversal.
Because there was no individual error in either case requiring reversal, there was
no cumulative error. See Comprehensive Neurosurgical, 257 N.J. at 85-86
(recognizing under a cumulative analysis appellate courts "do not merely count
the number of mistakes 'because even a large number of errors, if
inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice'" (quoting Torres v.
Pabon, 225 N.J. 167, 191 (2015))).
To the extent not specifically addressed, plaintiff's remaining contentions
in the defamation case lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
Affirmed.
A-1357-22 31