Tali Margalit v. Denise J. Schauble

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: November 26, 2024
• Docket: A-3857-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3857-22

TALI MARGALIT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DENISE J. SCHAUBLE,

Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________

Submitted October 30, 2024 – Decided November 26, 2024

Before Judges Marczyk and Paganelli.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-1190-23.

Tali Margalit, appellant pro se.

Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for respondent (William J. Buckley, of counsel; Catherine Popso O'Hern, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Tali Margalit, appeals from the June 23, 2023 order dismissing

her February 2023 complaint with prejudice. We affirm. In October 2022, Margalit filed a complaint (October Complaint) against

defendants, Schauble and Bergen New Bridge Medical Center. Margalit

contended a bill from defendants stated an "admit date and discharge date" of

May 24, 2022, but on that date she "was in Orlando, Florida." She complained

that defendants "refuse[d] to remove a hospital bill that [wa]s not mine."

Margalit alleged: (1) she was "embarrass[ed]"; (2) she suffered "defamation of

[her] health and well[-]being"; and (3) she lost "confidence in the hospital."

In January 2023, defendants' motion to dismiss Margalit's October

Complaint was granted. The October Complaint was dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e).1 The order provided Margalit could "file

an amended complaint if there [wa]s a good faith basis for doing so within

[forty-five] days."

Thereafter, Margalit filed a motion "to remove from the case jacket all

submitted responses and documents by the defendant[s]." In response,

1 Rule 4:6-2(e) provides:

Every defense, legal or equitable, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any complaint . . . shall be asserted in the answer thereto, except that the following defenses . . . may at the option of the pleader be made by motion, with briefs: . . . (e) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A-3857-22 2 defendants filed a cross-motion to "convert" the January order into an order

dismissing Margalit's October Complaint with prejudice. Defendants contended

the forty-five-day limit imposed in the January order had expired.

In February 2023, Margalit filed a new complaint (February Complaint)

against Schauble. She repeated the allegations from the October Complaint,

stating Schauble:

refuse[d] to remove a hospital bill that [wa]s not mine. The bill has [an] admit date and discharge date of [May 24, 2022]. On [May 24, 2022], I was in Orlando, Florida. Attached are "exhibits" proving that I was in Orlando, Florida. Included in the "exhibits" is a cellular phone bill proving . . . no cellular . . . calls [were made] on [May 24, 2022].

Margalit contended that: (1) she was "embarrass[ed]"; (2) she suffered

"defamation of [her] health and well[-] being"; and (3) she lost "confidence in

the hospital."

Further, Margalit sought "to delete the medical bill and any diagnosis

report pertaining to [May 24, 2022], from the hospital billing department and

the hospital patient medical records."

In March 2023, defendants' motion—to convert the dismissal of the

October Complaint from without prejudice to with prejudice—was granted.

A-3857-22 3 In April 2023, Schauble filed an Answer to the February Complaint. In

June, Schauble filed a motion to dismiss the February Complaint with prejudice

under Rule 4:6-2(e). In support of the motion, Schauble provided a copy of the

order dismissing Margalit's October Complaint. Margalit did not oppose the

motion.

On June 23, 2023, the motion judge dismissed the February Complaint,

based "upon the uncontested facts/exhibits/certification(s) provided with

[Schauble]'s papers."

On appeal, Margalit reiterates her factual arguments. She contends she

did not receive the services; should not have been billed; and was damaged —

embarrassment, defamation, and loss of confidence in the hospital—as a result

of Schauble's failure to remove the incorrect records from the medical records

system. However, Margalit fails to address the trial court's reliance on the

dismissal with prejudice of her October Complaint, for support to dismiss her

February Complaint.

"The application of res judicata is a question of law. . . ." Selective Ins.

Co. v. McAllister, 327 N.J. Super. 168, 173 (App. Div. 2000). "To the extent

that the trial court's decision constitutes a legal determination, we review it de

novo." D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168, 182 (2013). Further, "[a]n

A-3857-22 4 appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's determination of the motion to

dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e)." Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley,

Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019).

Under principles of res judicata, a "cause of action between parties that

has been finally determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction

cannot be relitigated by those parties or their privies in a new proceeding."

Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991).

The doctrine of res judicata serves the purpose of providing "finality and

repose; prevention of needless litigation; avoidance of duplication; reduction of

unnecessary burdens of time and expenses; elimination of conflicts, confusion

and uncertainty; and basic fairness." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Penn Salem

Marina, Inc., 190 N.J. 342, 352 (2007) (quoting Hackensack v. Winner, 82 N.J.

1, 32-33 (1980)). The doctrine "contemplates that when a controversy between

parties is once fairly litigated and determined it is no longer open to

re[-]litigation." Lubliner v. Bd. of Alcoholic Beverage Control of Paterson, 33

N.J. 428, 435 (1960). "Where the second action is no more than a repetition of

the first, the first lawsuit stands as a barrier to the second." Culver v. Ins. Co.

of N. Am., 115 N.J. 451, 460 (1989).

A-3857-22 5 For res judicata to apply, there must be: "(1) a final judgment by a court

of competent jurisdiction, (2) identity of issues, (3) identity of parties, and (4)

identity of the cause of action." Brookshire Equities, LLC v. Montaquiza, 346

N.J. Super. 310, 318 (App. Div. 2002). "A dismissal specifying that it is 'with

prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits as fully and completely as if

the order had been entered after trial.'" A.T. v. Cohen, 231 N.J. 337, 351 (2017)

(quoting Velasquez, 123 N.J. at 507).

Applying these well-established principles, we conclude there was no

error in the trial court's dismissal, with prejudice, of the February Complaint

relying on the dismissal with prejudice of the October Complaint. The dismissal

of the October Complaint with prejudice was a final judgment. See Cohen, 231

N.J. at 351.

Moreover, in every respect, the February and October Complaints were

mirrors of one another. Both complaints pertained to the same: (1) parties; (2)

medical bill/service from May 24, 2022; (3) reasons as to why the bill was not

incurred by Margalit; (4) damages—embarrassment, defamation, and loss of

confidence in the hospital; and (5) relief sought—removal of the record of

service from the medical record's system. Therefore, the trial court correctly

A-3857-22 6 applied the doctrine of res judicata in dismissing Margalit's February Complaint

with prejudice relying on the final judgment in the October matter.

To the extent we have not addressed other arguments raised by Margalit,

we find they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-3857-22 7