The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC v. Robert Noh
This text of The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC v. Robert Noh (The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC v. Robert Noh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1146-23
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAJEH A. SAADEH, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT NOH,
Defendant-Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted December 17, 2024 – Decided May 1, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC-001117- 23.
The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC, appellant pro se (Rajeh A. Saadeh and Stilianos M. Cambilis, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM I.
In this collection action, plaintiff the Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC
appeals from the provision of the October 30, 2023 Special Civil Part default
judgment against defendant Robert Noh granting it $2,454.30 in attorney's fees
and disbursements, an amount substantially less than the requested award of
$10,742.30. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.
II.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the pertinent
facts are as follows. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016). The material facts are undisputed. On
April 15, 2019, defendant retained plaintiff to represent him in a post-judgment
matrimonial matter. The retainer agreement provided in relevant part:
Should it be necessary to utilize the legal process to collect any amount outstanding, [Rajeh A. Saadeh] 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.
As of May 2022, defendant had not paid the invoice in the amount of
$396.90. Thereafter, in February 2023, plaintiff sent a fee arbitration pre-action
notice to defendant. R. 1:20A-6. Defendant did not pursue fee arbitration. In
A-1146-23 2 April 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part against defendant
for the outstanding fees, costs of collection, and attorney's fees associated with
collecting its fee. Default was entered against defendant. In August 2023,
defendant attempted to file an answer through a motion to vacate default,
arguing that he did not receive goods or services. The motion was denied, and
default was entered against defendant.
Plaintiff then moved for summary judgment, seeking $396.90 in unpaid
legal fees and $10,254.40 in attorney's fees. In support of its motion, plaintiff's
counsel submitted a certification, which stated the $7,328 amount requested
represented 22.9 hours of work at $320 per hour, $366.40 in expenses and
disbursements, and $2,560 in anticipated fees calculated to be eight hours of
work at $320 per hour in pursuing collection. Defendant did not oppose
plaintiff's motion.
In the October 30, 2023 written statement of reasons, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding there was no genuine issue of
material fact defendant breached the retainer agreement and owed $396.90 for
unpaid legal services. Relying on Rendine v. Pantzer 1, the court found $320 per
hour billing was "reasonable and similar to rates charged in the locality" and
1 141 N.J. 292, 335 (1995). A-1146-23 3 was calculated "according to the 'prevailing market rates in the relevant
community.'" After assessing the reasonableness of the billing entries, the court
determined that eight entries, totaling 16.7 hours, constituted "block billing" and
were "not descriptive enough for the court to adequately assess the
reasonableness of hours claimed for the work performed for the related
charges[.]" The court further determined that six entries, which totaled one
hour, contained vague language—"[r]eview file" and "strategy planning."
Finally, one entry for .2 hours was found to be duplicative. The court reasoned:
The court finds good cause to strike these entries as unreasonable billing practices and reduces the hours sought accordingly by the amount of 17.9 hours. Additionally, the court finds good cause to strike [p]laintiff's requested anticipated legal fees in the amount of $2,560[].
The court awards the remainder of the amount sought, totaling [five] hours, as those entries sufficiently demonstrate that the work performed was reasonable and related to the instant matter.
An October 20, 2023 judgment memorialized the court's decision awarding
plaintiff $396.90 for unpaid legal fees, $1,966.40 in attorney's fees related to
collection efforts, and disbursements, $75 as a filing fee, and $16 as a service
fee.
A-1146-23 4 On appeal, plaintiff contends it is entitled to the costs of collection,
including a reasonable allowance for professional time expended by its
attorneys, and reasonable expenses from defendant. In addition, plaintiff
contends: (1) it did not engage in "block billing;" 2 (2) the alleged block billing
entries warrant review for reasonableness pursuant to RPC 1.5(a) and should not
have been stricken; (3) the billing entries were not vague; (4) the alleged vague
billing entries warrant review for reasonableness pursuant to RPC 1.5(a); and
(5) the billing entries were not duplicative.
III.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the trial court. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 (2022). That
standard requires us to "determine whether 'the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.'" Branch
2 "'Block billing' is the time-keeping method by which each lawyer and legal assistant enters the total daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time expended on specific tasks." Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1554 n.15 (10th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A-1146-23 5 v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).
"Summary judgment should be granted . . . 'against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'"
Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472 (2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). We do not defer to the trial court's legal
analysis or statutory interpretation. RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
234 N.J. 459, 472 (2018); Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209 (2014).
Guided by these principles we are satisfied the trial court's written
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, LLC v. Robert Noh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-law-office-of-rajeh-a-saadeh-llc-v-robert-noh-njsuperctappdiv-2025.