Jeremy J. Zacharias RPLU

The plaintiffs, Tara and Aniello Novembre, filed a first action against the New Jersey Nets alleging personal injuries while attending a Nets home game in January 2005. According to the plaintiffs, a student from Snyder High School seated in a row above them fell on Tara and injured her. The first action proceeded to trial, and the jury found no cause of action existed. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. 

The plaintiffs then filed a subsequent action, asserting new causes of action, including claims for fraudulent concealment, fraud and legal malpractice against their adversary’s counsel (attorney defendants), among others. The attorney defendants moved for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, and the court found that the doctrine of res judicata and the entire controversy doctrine barred the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissed the complaint. 

The trial court also allowed one attorney defendant group to file a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys. In granting this motion, the trial court held that the plaintiffs and their counsel knew or should have known that the complaint was barred by res judicata and was filed in bad faith and for an improper purpose. The trial court thereafter entered a judgment against the plaintiffs and their attorneys in the amount of $13,930.00. 

On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the orders dismissing the case against the attorney defendants and affirmed the order awarding sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys. In reaching this holding as to the dismissal of the legal malpractice claims, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite attorney-client relationship to pursue a legal malpractice action against the attorney defendants, who never represented the plaintiffs. See Green v. Morgan Properties, 215 N.J. 431 (2013). With regard to the sanctions award, the Appellate Division held that while New Jersey disfavors the shifting of attorneys’ fees, a prevailing party can recover those fees if they are expressly provided for by statute, court rule or contract. See Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001). The Appellate Division held that plaintiffs’ counsel knew, or should have known, that the claims in the subsequent action against the attorney defendants were without reasonable basis in law and could not be supported by a good faith argument for a modification of existing law. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2032 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}