Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

In Roberts v. Mintz, defendant bought what he believed was a "healthy, nine-month old, purebred Havanese," but what he got was a two-year old dog that was not a purebred Havanese, and was suffering from various health problems. Defendant complained and plaintiffs offered to refund his money in exchange for the dog. Defendant refused. He wanted the refund, but he wanted to keep the dog because he had already incurred $800 in veterinary fees and because he had become fond of the dog, which he named Moose.

One month after buying Moose, defendant began posting about his experience with plaintiffs on his blog. As you probably guessed, the posts were not positive. Eventually, plaintiffs sued in connection with six specific statements defendant made on his blog, which, among other things, accused plaintiffs of being members of a "notorious ring of South Jersey dog grifters," alleged that plaintiffs had been convicted of animal cruelty, claimed that plaintiffs' lived in a "run down farmhouse with 6 children," and described plaintiffs as "despicable human beings" who ran a "fraudulent puppy mill." Defendants also posted that they had heard from others who were "unwittingly scammed" by plaintiffs. Individuals who claimed to be plaintiffs responded to some of the posts in the comments sections of the blog, calling defendant a "liar" and a "jerk," and claiming that he "suffered from 'rage syndrome,' a behavioral condition that afflicts canines."

In lieu of answering plaintiffs' complaint, defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking to have the complaint dismissed. He also served plaintiffs with a frivolous litigation letter. Plaintiffs cross moved for summary judgment and also sought an injunction preventing defendant from defaming them. The trial court granted defendant's motion. It held that plaintiffs were barred from suing in connection with several of the statements because the one-year statute of limitations had expired. In doing so, it rejected plaintiff's claim that the statute of limitations should have been tolled because defendant had committed a continuous tort. The trial court found that the remaining statements were "opinions, epithets, and hyperbole," and were therefore "not sufficiently factual to be actionable."

Defendant then moved for sanctions, and the trial court granted the motion. Although it did no award defendant all of the sanctions he sought, it did award him $25,000 — assessed against both plaintiffs and their counsel — because plaintiffs filed their complaint without sufficient evidentiary support and because several claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Both sides then appealed — plaintiffs seeking to reverse the trial court's decision dismissing their complaint, and defendant seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to award him less in sanctions than what he requested

Continue reading “Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory” →

Refer(ral) Madness: Court Nixes Fee Sharing For Lawyer Who Referred Case To Lawyer Who Referred Case To Lawyer Who Handled Case

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Under New Jersey law, lawyers can, in some instances, share fees with lawyers at a different firm to whom they refer a case. But what happens when Lawyer A refers a case to Lawyer B who then refers the case to Lawyer C? Can Lawyers A and B share in the recovery that Lawyer C achieves for the client? This was the question the Appellate Division faced in Weiner & Mazzei, P.C. v. The Sattiraju Law Firm, PC. The answer, in that case, was "no," but there are instances where this type of three-way sharing would be appropriate.

In Weiner & Mazzei, a lawyer was contacted by a family friend in need of advice on a possible workplace injury/change of employment case. The lawyer advised the family friend that he appeared to have a valid claim and referred the family friend to an attorney who specialized in that area of law. The first lawyer claimed that he told the family friend that the second lawyer would take the case on contingency and that the first lawyer would be paid a referral fee. The family friend denied ever being told about the referral fee.

After speaking with the first lawyer, however, the second lawyer also refused the case but agreed to refer it to defendant, a law firm with at least one certified civil trial attorney. The second lawyer had a standing referral agreement with defendant and defendant agreed to abide by the usual one-third referral fee contained in that agreement.

Defendant prosecuted the client's employment case and eventually reached a confidential settlement with the client's former employer. Plaintiffs — the first and second lawyers — sued, claiming they were jointly entitled to one-third of defendant's fee. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which was originally denied, but was later granted upon reconsideration. Plaintiffs appealed.

Continue reading “Refer(ral) Madness: Court Nixes Fee Sharing For Lawyer Who Referred Case To Lawyer Who Referred Case To Lawyer Who Handled Case” →

Are Exceptions Starting To Swallow The “American Rule” In New Jersey?

The answer to that question would appear to be: it depends who you ask. In a pair of decisions released on April 26, 2016, Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich and In Re Estate of Folcher, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the “American Rule” — the idea that each party to a lawsuit is responsible for its own attorney’s fees — and specifically whether to narrow or expand certain common-law exceptions to that rule. At the center of the two decisions was Justice LaVecchia, who authored the majority opinion in Folcher and the dissent in Innes. These decisions leave little doubt that this is not the last we have heard from the Supreme Court on the parameters of the American Rule.

First, a brief history of the American Rule in New Jersey. In 1948, New Jersey adopted a new Constitution and re-organized its court system. As part of this re-organization, and as it relates to the awarding of prevailing party attorney’s fees, New Jersey could have adopted either the English Rule, which allows for the liberal awarding of such fees, or the American Rule, which does not. New Jersey chose the latter. This decision is currently embodied in Rule 4:42-9, which only allows for eight exceptions to the general rule.

Over the years, however, New Jersey courts have created common law exceptions to the American Rule. These cases have followed two, independent tracks, one arising in the context of the attorney-client relationship and one arising in the context of estate administration.

Continue reading “Are Exceptions Starting To Swallow The “American Rule” In New Jersey?” →

Court Adopts Low Tech Solution to High Tech Evidence Problem

Litigation has been transformed over the past decade or so by e-discovery. An entire industry has developed around the collection and presentation of emails, text messages, social networking posts, etc. In large commercial cases, it is not unusual to have an outside vendor handling this evidence from discovery through trial. But what about a different kind of case, for example, a contested domestic violence hearing, where the victim, often acting pro se, comes to court with a smart phone containing allegedly threatening text messages, and seeks to introduce those messages into evidence. They only exist on the phone, so there is nothing that the victim can physically introduce into evidence, and therefore no documentary evidence of the messages that can be reviewed on appeal. How then does a court accept evidence from a plaintiff's cell phone into the court record?

This was precisely the question facing the court in E.C. v. R.H., a recent unpublished Law Division decision. In that case, plaintiff alleged that defendant harassed her through unwanted texts, social media posts, and voice mails. She asked the court to enter a restraining order against defendant. At the start of the hearing on her application, plaintiff sought to introduce evidence of several allegedly harassing communications that were stored on her cell phone. The court observed that the court rules, which were designed to handle tangible evidence, were not designed to handle a request like this: "[S]ome of the more traditional methods of introducing evidence into court do not address the specialized needs and practical problems which may arise when parties come into court and seek to introduce information stored on their cell phones directly into evidence." The Court further observed that this problem was exacerbated in the domestic violence context, which involves "expedited summary proceedings [and] self-represented litigants who have little or no legal training at all."

Continue reading “Court Adopts Low Tech Solution to High Tech Evidence Problem” →

Oops?!? Failure To Include Transcript In Appellate Record Results In Harsh Sanction

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

It's not quite "deflategate" but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently reminded all of us that rules are rules and they need to be followed whether they involve the air in a football or the contents of an appellate record.

In Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P., plaintiff alleged that defendant was required to "make good on four mortgage loans" that plaintiff's subsidiary had purchased from defendant's predecessor ten years earlier. The district court eventually granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion, and held that defendant was liable to plaintiff for an amount totaling around $450,000 plus interest. The reasons for the district court's decision are not as interesting as what happened to defendant when it appealed that decision.

Continue reading “Oops?!? Failure To Include Transcript In Appellate Record Results In Harsh Sanction” →