The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC v. Evens Rozier

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: June 19, 2025
• Docket: A-3795-23
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3795-23

THE LAW OFFICE OF RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EVENS ROZIER,

Defendant-Respondent. ________________________

Submitted May 19, 2025 – Decided June 19, 2025

Before Judges Sabatino and Jablonski.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC- 002956-24.

Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Cynthia L. Dubell, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM In this collection action, plaintiff Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC,

appeals from a portion of a Special Civil Part default judgment and order

entered in its favor and against defendant Evens Rozier. In a comprehensive

statement of reasons, the trial judge entered an order not only awarding

damages for the outstanding amount due to plaintiff, but also reducing

plaintiff's requested attorney fee award, finding that several of the requested

charges were unreasonable. We affirm.

I.

The material facts are not disputed. Defendant hired plaintiff to

represent him in a divorce matter and executed a retainer agreement. In

pertinent part, it read:

If our professional relationship ends, we will assert a lien on any amounts recovered by you in settlement or adjudication of your case for the amount you owe. This does not foreclose us from exercising any other rights we have at law or in equity to collect or secure our fee. If we utilize any legal process to collect any amount outstanding, we will be entitled to recover the costs of collection, including for professional time expended by attorneys in and outside of The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, L.L.C., and reasonable expenses, including but not limited to court, service, and execution costs.

Defendant failed to pay several invoices and owed plaintiff $1,771.75.

After sending a fee arbitration pre-action notice to defendant, plaintiff asserted

A-3795-23 2 a charging lien in the Family Part "FM" docket type to secure payment of fees

against any assets subject to equitable distribution. Plaintiff sued defendant in

the Special Civil Part for the outstanding fees, costs of collection, and attorney

fees associated with collecting its fee. Default was then entered against

defendant.

Plaintiff sought a default judgment to recover an aggregate claimed sum

of $5,294.75. This sum consisted of $1,771.75 for the unpaid fees, $157 in

filing and service fees, and attorney's fees totaling $3,366 which included $720

in anticipated fees. Within the attorney fee calculation, "collection efforts"

were detailed, comprised of seven hours for filing a lien in the FM docket, a

generalized five percent fee for copying and printing costs, and two hours for

"anticipated" tasks which included the possibility of reviewing emails and

opposition documents.

After reviewing the supporting documentation in the unopposed motion,

the trial judge, in a comprehensive statement of reasons, held defendant liable

for the $1,771.75 related to plaintiff's representation of defendant in the FM

matter and $107 in costs. The trial court, however, disallowed $50 on the

requested charging lien motion filing fee and reduced the attorney fees from

$3,366 sought to $1,620.

A-3795-23 3 Relying on Rendine v. Pantzer,1 the judge concluded that the attorney's

$360 per hour billing rate was "reasonable and similar to rates charged in the

locality" and was calculated "according to the 'prevailing market rates in the

relevant community.'" The judge denied billing entries on the attorney's

certification related to the FM docket charging lien because it was unrelated to

the Special Civil Part docket. Similarly, the judge struck entries such as "[f]ile

review/strategy planning" as vague, and another "[r]ead [c]ourt email;

[r]etriev[ing] notice of summons mailed and default date from eCourts;

[i]nstruct staff" as clerical in nature. The judge also concluded that the five

percent expense charge was unreasonable and similarly found that plantiff was

not entitled to anticipatory legal fees in an unopposed motion for final default

judgment. Ultimately, the court reduced the attorney fees for collection to

$1,620, concluding this modified sum "represent[ed] the court's determination

of the reasonable number of hours [p]laintiff's attorney expended for each task

related to this action multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney

who performed the task."

Plaintiff appeals from this decision.

1 141 N.J. 292, 337 (1995).

A-3795-23 4 II.

Our review of a trial court's decision to award attorney fees is

deferential. Garmeaux v. DNV Concepts, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 148, 155 (App.

Div. 2016). Trial court determinations on attorney fee awards are only

disturbed "'on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of

discretion.'" Litton Indus., Inc. v. IMO Indus., Inc., 200 N.J. 372, 386 (2009)

(quoting Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001)). As

such, an award of fees will not be modified unless the trial court mistakenly

exercises its discretion. Berkowitz v. Berkowitz, 55 N.J. 564, 570 (1970).

Where case law, statutes, and rules are followed and the judge makes

appropriate findings of fact, the fee award is entitled to substantial deference.

Yueh v. Yueh, 329 N.J. Super. 447, 466, (App. Div. 2000); see also Pressler &

Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 4.7 on R. 5:3-5 (2025).

We are satisfied the trial court's written statement of reasons provided

ample basis for the court's determination. See Gormley v. Gormley, 462 N.J.

Super. 433, 449 (App. Div. 2019); Romero v. Gold Star Distrib., LLC, 468

N.J. Super. 274, 304 (App. Div. 2021). Based on our deferential review, we

are convinced the court fairly and meticulously analyzed plaintiff's

certification of attorney services. The record shows the court considered the

A-3795-23 5 difficulty of the matter, the skill required, and the results obtained. The

ultimate amount represents the court's determination of the reasonable number

of hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney who

performed the task, with pertinent deductions that the court sufficiently

justified and explained. There is no proven "clear abuse of discretion." Litton,

200 N.J. at 386. We therefore discern no error in the trial court's award of

modified attorney fees and disbursements to plaintiff.

To the extent we have not addressed any of plaintiff's remaining

contentions, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant further

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-3795-23 6