Preview
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001)
ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC
Attorneys-At-Law
15 Warren Street, PH-West
Hackensack, New Jersey 070601
(201) 464-5155
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
NOREEN FLUGGER and, )
MARGARET HAYES, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19
)
vs. ) Civil Action
)
A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED )
PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC. )
JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS,
KATHLEEN BISI, ) MOTION FOR RECUSAL
LUCILLE HAUBNER
MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI &
CONTE, P.A.,
JANE DOES 1-10, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
ABC CORP. I-X, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
TO: Andrew P. Bolson, Esq.
Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte,P.A.
One Paragon Drive, Suite 240
Montvale, New Jersey 07645
Attorney for Defendants
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, December 4, 2020, at 9:00 in the
forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will apply to the
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, at the Bergen County Courthouse in
Hackensack, New Jersey, for an Order for recusal.
Attached hereto is a certification upon which reliance is made. Also attached is a
form of Order. Oral argument is waived unless timely opposition is filed.
I hereby certify that the original of this Motion and supporting documents is being
e-filed with the County Clerk in Bergen, Hackensack, New Jersey and served upon the
attorney for the Plaintiff as noted above.
Asatrian Law Group, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
By: Li
Martin V. Asatrian
DATED: November 20, 2020
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001)
ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC
Attorneys-At-Law
15 Warren Street, PH-West
Hackensack, New Jersey 070601
(201) 464-5155
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
NOREEN FLUGGER and, )
MARGARET HAYES, )
Plaintiffs, ) DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19
vs. Civil Action
A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC.
JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS,
KATHLEEN BISI, ORDER
LUCILLE HAUBNER
MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI &
CONTE, P.A.,
JANE DOES 1-10, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
ABC CORP. I-X, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
THIS MATTER being opened to the Court by Martin V. Asatrian Esq., attorney for
Plaintiff, for an Order to compel discovery, and the Court having reviewed the papers submitted
and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this day of December 2020,
ORDERED that Motion for Recusal be granted in its entirety; and
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a true copy of this order be served upon the attorneys
for Defendant within days of the date hereof.
JS.C.
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001)
ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC
Attorneys-At-Law
15 Warren Street, PH-West
Hackensack, New Jersey 070601
(201) 464-5155
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
NOREEN FLUGGER and, )
MARGARET HAYES, )
Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19
vs. Civil Action
A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC.
JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS,
KATHLEEN BISI, CERTIFICATION
LUCILLE HAUBNER
MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI &
CONTE, P.A.,
JANE DOES 1-10, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
ABC CORP. I-X, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
I, Martin V. Asatrian, certify and, say:
1 I am an Attorney at Law of the State of New Jersey and the attorney for
Plaintiff, and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this matter.
2. Counsel for Plaintiff hereby makes the following motion for your recusal
and disqualification, pursuant to R. 1:12-2; N.J.S.A. 2A:15-49; Bonnet v. Stewart, 155
N.J. Super. 326,382 A.2d 930 (App. Div. 1978), See also Clawans v. Schakat, 49 N.J.
Super. 415,140 A.2d 234 (App. Div. 1958). Kindly be advised, submission of a recusal
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
motion to the challenged judge is not only required by statute and rule, but also sound
practice. Such a serious motion is also in the best interest of the clients and parties in this
case. Counsel for plaintiff, respectfully requests Your Honor at your discretion to appoint
three disinterested persons to decide the motion to recuse which is permissible by statute.
N.J.S.A. 2A:15-50. See Clawans v. Waugh, 10 N.J. Super. 605, 77 A.2d 519 (Cty.
Dist.Ct.1950). Otherwise, a party that may be dissatisfied with a denial of a recusal motion
may appeal.
3 In the case at bar, Plaintiffs who are highly reputable members of the
nursing community filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli,
and Conte, P.A. a Bergen County law firm with retired Bergen County Judges Conte,
Retired (Bergen County Judge), and Retired Bergen County Judge Carroll being either of
Counsel or a named Counsel at the time of the action. In fact, Retired Bergen County
Judge Carroll contacted Plaintiffs Counsel on this very case.
4. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and
Conte, P.A., and the A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc et.
Al. Margaret Hayes, a member of the board of A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional
Nurses Association, Inc., for over twenty-five (25 years). The causes of action of the
lawsuit against the law firm were for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and
other related causes of action. The causes of action against the AA Registry were for
retaliation, harassment, defamation, and other related causes of action. After the lawsuit
was timely and properly filed, Andrew Bolson filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of filing
an Answer. It is important to note, Andrew Bolson was a named party and a partner of
the firm and an advocate in a prior action in the Chancery Division.
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 3 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
5 At oral arguments on January 10, 2020 before Your Honor, Plaintiff's
Counsel made an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. John A. Conte, Jr. Esq., and
Andrew Bolson made appearances on behalf of the law firm and the co-defendant AA
Registry (Please see complete and unabridged transcripts of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of
Filing an Answer as Exhibit A). Your Honor stated that Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and
Conte, P.A., is clearly precluded since there was no “attorney-client relationship”
between the plaintiff and the defendant law firm. “A law firm has a right to represent
their clients.” (Exhibit A; Transcript 1-10). Your Honor dismissed every single count
against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. with prejudice, without the law firm
filing an Answer, and without limited discovery, and without depositions, without any
fact investigation whatsoever based on the fact Ms. Hayes who never waived her right to
attorney client privilege. Ms. Hayes was and still is a member of the board of A &A
Registry that is being represented by the Meyerson law firm against her rights as a client,
member, and party.
6 On August 8, 2019, on a telephone conference by your Honor on a case
entitled Asatrian v. Bergen Catholic et. al (Ber-L-001440-18) (where Counsel for the
Plaintiffs was named as a Third Party Defendant), Your Honor made the following
statements on the record (See Attached Exhibit B: Transcript of Telephone Conference
pages 1 through 54), without any discovery being propounded by any party whatsoever.
In the absence of any discovery, in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor
by a wrestling coach, the following statements were made in the order of appearance by
Your Honor.
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 4 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
7 It is important to note, Your Honor is required as a respected member of
the Judiciary and having been specifically trained as to sensitivity and accordingly on
these type of highly traumatic cases to set the appropriate tone of the courtroom.
Especially when it comes to sensitive matters like domestic violence, sexual abuse and
sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn, and respectful, not demeaning, or
sophomoric. In these highly sensitive cases, a Superior Court Judge is not to make
comments or remarks about “fun and games.” See Attached as Exhibit C In the Matter of
John F. Russo, Jr. (D-100-18) (082636) (Writing by Justice Rabner. C.J. writing for the
Court.
8 In the case referenced above, the Your Honor used the following words in
a highly sensitive case before any evidence was ever produced, “We need to have them
all come in for a big old dog and pony show,” “That story is a story that would be great—
be great for all the press and for tabloid journalism in general,” “all the histrionics,” “And
so of course, now what’s going to happen is I’m going to get a bunch of jurors, like
Frances McDormand here, the police chief from Fargo. We’re going to have common
sense, and they’re going to see right through it. But—but we have to destroy everybody
in the process,” “And then when we get to the endgame, then we will have a big old party
in my courtroom...,” And—of course—well, it’s fun but, of course, it’s going to be just a
completely destructive war with no endgame other than vengeance and revenge and
destruction and histrionics.” “Which will be fun too for, everybody except for the parties
and for the jurors and anybody who---but it will be good for the lawyers.”
9 Your Honor further states at the conference, “Well, that’s his tough luck.
I’m—if they want a deposition before he goes to school, fine. But he (the plaintiff)
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 5 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
decided---maybe he didn’t. Maybe there were people behind him. But he decided he
wanted to sue and destroy some people’s reputation for some money because of damages
he incurred, so he brought this on.” Your Honor is referring to the Plaintiff in the above-
referenced case on the record. Your Honor further states the following on the record
below in connection with his thoughts on a motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an Answer.
“Okay.. So then you kind understand how motions to dismiss (in lieu of to the Flugger
Case), are generally never ever given. And so it would be would be what we call a
Pyrrhic Victory, and we don’t want any more Pyrrhic victories.”
10. Your Honor denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice on one case
without creating a record for purposes of an Appeal or holding oral arguments, and yet
Your Honor granted with prejudice Meyerson’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer
with Prejudice. Your Honor further states, “We do not want any more dog and pony
shows. We want a final conclusive battle royale with complete destruction of everyone all
at the end.” Your further states on the record without any exchange of written discovery,
without any inspections, without any depositions, without any evidence whatsoever,
“Yeah, well, it won’t be that much of a pleasure if you all decide to destroy a bunch of
individuals in this lawsuit for no real gain. It---I guess there’s the old expression “there’s
no there there.” “And I understand what started this off and the revenge.” Judge Wilson
ends the hearing on the record, “Except that the litigation itself is that carnage. Have fun,
gentlemen.”
11. With the most utmost respect Your Honor made adverse rulings to
Plaintiff's counsel in this case. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and
ordered Your Honor sua sponte to make findings of law and fact as to the decision to
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 6 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
deny a prior victim to testify. (See Attached Exhibit D). Your honor on or about
September 21, 2020, ordered a “litigation shield” for your law clerk Jade Sobh and
instructed Counsel not to discuss this matter with Mr. Sobh without any explanation
whatsoever and in an untimely fashion 20 days after the hiring of the law clerk.(See
attached as Exhibit E; Litigation Shield Order)(See also Exhibit F; Your Honor’s Order
compelling telephone records with no attorney-client privilege protections
whatsoever)(See also attached as Exhibit G; Plaintiff's Counsel Interlocutory Appeal as
to the Compulsion by Judge Wilson of Telephone Records) (See also attached Exhibit H;
Judge Wilson’s March 30, 2020 Status Conference).
12. In conclusion, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks in the best interests of
his clients and public confidence in the Judiciary that Your Honor kindly recuse yourself
for the following reasons, laws set forth above, and facts set forth above and attached as
exhibits. In order to avoid adverse appearances, Plaintiff's Counsel kindly asks with the
utmost respect and deference that Your Honor appoint a three-member panel in order to
have a hearing on this matter in order to avoid yet another appeal to the Appellate
Division. Of course, Your Honor may choose a panel of Judges as permitted by Statute to
hear the motion. After long and serious deliberation, in the best interests of my clients,
Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully and tactfully requests your recusal. As stated in the outset
of this filing, this motion for recusal is required of counsel and it is permitted by statute,
is in the best interests of the clients, and equally importantly Plaintiffs Counsel should
have to worry about zealously representing his clients before Your Honor, and at the
same time, filing Appeals against Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant for fear of
reprisal by Your Honor.
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 7 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks that Your Honor appreciate the great
difficulty, complexity, and calculation is required in appearing before Your Honor as a
zealous advocate on one hand, and at the same time, appearing before Your Honor as a
Third Party Defendant. Your Honor can solve the precarious position Plaintiff's Counsel
finds himself along with his precious clients, by simply recusing yourself from the cases
in which Plaintiff's Counsel is an advocate. Your Honor I plead with this fine Court to
recuse yourself in the best interests of the clients, public confidence, and in the best
lif
interests of justice.
DATE: November 20, 2020
Martin V. Asatrian
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001)
ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC
Attorneys-At-Law
15 Warren Street, PH-West
Hackensack, New Jersey 070601
(201) 464-5155
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
NOREEN FLUGGER and, )
MARGARET HAYES, )
Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19
vs. Civil Action
A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC.
JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS,
KATHLEEN BISI, PROOF OF SERVICE
LUCILLE HAUBNER
MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI &
CONTE, P.A.,
JANE DOES 1-10, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
ABC CORP. I-X, (said names
being fictitious, true names presently
unknown),
Thereby certify that a copy of this motion and any accompanying pages are being
e-filed with the Court.
I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
Asatrian Law Group, LLC
Attomey for,Defendant
4
Yip
7
By:
DATED: November 22 ,2020 artinV. Asatrian
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
EXHIBIT A
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
SUPERIOR co OR
T OF NEW JE
LAW DIVIStIo; RSEY
N: CIVIL PA
BERGEN Coun iT RT
DOCKET No.:
BER-L-7546~1
A.D, 9
NOREEN FLUGGE ee
R AND
GARET HAYES, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) TRANSCRIPT
vs. MOTION
A&A RIDGEW jo
oD REGISTERED
PROFESSION. IAL
NURSES
ASSOCTATIO} N,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
Place: BergenCou nty Justice
10 Main st reet Center
Hackensack,
New Jersey
07601
BEFORE: Date: January 10,
2020
HONORABLE ROBERT Cc. WILSON, J.S.c,
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED By:
JOSEPH Pp, FITENI, ESQ., (Coughlin Duffy, L.L.P.)
APPEARANCES:
MARTIN ASATRI
AN, EsQ.
Attorney for
Plai ntiffs
ANDREW BOL, ‘SO ie
N, ESQ. AND
JOHN A. co NTE,
& Conte, P.A.) JR., EsQ., (Meyerson Fox Mancinelli
Attorneys fo
r Defendants
Transcriber: Nitsa Carroz
PHOENIX TRANSC za
RIPTION
796 Macopin
Ro. ad
West Milford,
NJ 07480
(862) 248-0670
Audio Recorded
Recording Op
r: Maria Marcano
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 3 of 157 Trans ID LCV20202117759
INVE
sS DEX
Colloquy re: Housekeeping Po
tee PAGE
e e e
e et
e, 34
MOT
e ZION hTO DI
SU DISM
SMIS
ISS:
s:
ARGUMENTS;
BY: Mr. Bolson
PAGE
BY: Mr. Asatrian
4,22
12,28
Tv HE LO
=e COUR
URT:
T:
Decision
PAGE
32
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 4 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
(Proceeding commenced at 10:05:05 a.m.)
THE COURT: This is the matter of Noreen
Flugger and Margaret Hayes Versus A&A Ridgewood
Registered Professional Nurses Associa tion, Janet
Kell Janet Dobbs Kathleen Beece honetic
Lucille
Hobner (phonetic) Meyerson Fox, Mancinelli and Conte,
P.A, Counsel, can I have your appearances on L-7546-
.
19? Go ahead, plaintif¢ first.
MR. ASATRIAN: Good morning, Your Honor,
10 Martin Asatrian, A-s- A-T-R-I-A-N, from
, the Asatrian Law
11 Group, 15 Warren Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. I
12 represent the plaintiffs, Ms. Noreen Flugger and Ms.
13 Margaret Hayes,
14
THE COURT: Yeah, I know you've been to court
15 before, currently with the Chancery Division,
16
MR. ASATRIAN: I was, Your Honor I was.
17
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, can I have
18 your appearances, please? ‘
19
MR. BOLSON: Good morning, Your Honor, Andrew
20 Bolson from the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli
21 and Conte, on behalf of the defendants and 1 have --
22
MR. CONTE: May it please the Court, Your
23 Honor, John Conte, Jr., also with Meyerson, Fox,
24 Mancinelli and Conte, also on behalf of the defendants.
25 THE COURT: All right. You guys are the
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 5 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
movants.
MR. BOLSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But it’s all kind of mixed in
here. So you have -- like count nine, the claims
against your law firm. Do you want to do with that one
first?
MR. BOLSON I would love to, Your Honor.
.
THE COURT: And then we’1l break them down to
other counts.
10 MR. BOLSON I’m frankly disturbed by the
11 count, Your Honor --
12 THE COURT: Well, don’t be disturbed. This
13 is -- this is the business we have chosen.
14 MR. BOLSON: Yeah, you’re right but Mr,
15 Asatrian has decided to file a lawsuit against my law
16 firm for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty
17 and promissory estoppel or not --
18 THE COURT: Well, you represented his client?
19 MR. BOLSON: We did not represent his client.
20 THE COURT: They’ re suing you for malpractice
21 and you didn’t represent the client?
22 MR. BOLSON: I don’t -- yeah --
23 THE COURT: I see. that
Now, sometimes can
24 happen but those facts are very discrete and you’re
25 saying those facts don’t exist in this case?
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 6 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
5
MR. BOLSON: Not at all. We don’t understand
it and we pleaded that and what I -- in his opposition,
he doesn’t even address it. He doesn’t even address at
all the issues of the counts against my firm. So I
presume that they’re actually unopposed, that’s how I
took them.
THE COURT: Okay, all right. So we'll get
the -- now, counts one and two and I made allusions
that there would -- was a Chancery Division matter, Do
10 you want to talk about those two counts?
11 MR. BOLSON: Let me just get out the --
12 MR. CONTE: Need the complaint?
13 MR. BOLSON: Just give me one second to get
14 my brief, Your Honor, so I can talk about counts one
15 and two, which are the -- I believe it’s the defamation
16 count, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: And emotional distress, I think,
18 no?
*
19 MR. BOLSON: “yes. In terms of the defamation
20 count, plaintiff’s complaint doesn’t even indicate a
21 defamatory statement. In order to have a defamation,
22 you have to have a -- you have to state the statement
23 which you claim to be defamatory. In the previous
24 litigation, during the dep --
25 THE COURT: Yep, that’s all right, keep
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 7 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
going.
MR. BOLSON: In the previous litigation, at
the deposition of Ms. Kelly, Mr. Asatrian discussed
numerous times a statement that -- that my client
claims that she said that his client was untrustworthy.
Possibly, that’s the statement that he claims to be
defamatory. If that was the case, her deposition was
in -- the statute of limitations would have run on
that.
10 So -- but we can’t even argue -- we don’t
11 even know which statement it is or when the statement
12 was made, so it’s hard to even say whether a statute
13 had run or not because you don’t have a statement,
14 which is, as a preliminary matter, it fails to state a
15 cause of action.
16 THE COURT: And then emotional distress?
17 MR. BOLSON: I mean, for the same reasons. I
18 mean, all these actions are related to the ~- to the
19 previous matter. The entire -- I mean, we briefed the
20 Entire Controversy Doctrine at length because we
21 believe it absolutely applies in this case.
22 Ms. Flugger was removed as a trustee
23 organization, as a founding member, in August of 2018
24 right when the prior litigation was commencing. They
25 had eight months to amend their complaint. They
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 8 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
proceeded to effectively act in that litigation, as if
those matters were part of the litigation.
He says, you know, Judge DeLuca only gave him
90 days worth of discovery. They chose to spend those
90 days on these issues, that’ s what the subject of the
discovery was. I attended those depositions and that’s
what the discovery was.
.
To also pinpoint -- to -- to go back to t he
legal malpractice and the matters involving my firm, I
10 also noticed in his opposition that he addresses issues
11 on conflict and is seeking now to disqualify my law
12 firm without even filing a cross motion, which I was a
13 little confused by and also without citing any case law
14 as to why that would be relevant or how that would
15 possibly be.
16 But in any case, what I was also disturbed by
17 was that, he claims that my client says in the
18 deposition that I directed my ckient to terminate Ms.
19 Flugger. He neither cites to the transcript, provides
20 the transcript and frankly, it just didn’t happen. I
21 have gone through the transcript, beyond being there.
22 She never said that comment and that, I find to be very
23 disturbing that, that comment wouldn’t be made and it’s
24 frankly not in the transcript and it never occurred.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 9 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
MR. BOLSON: As to the other allegations --
THE COURT: The other counts, yeah.
MR. BOLSON: ~~ are the subject of my motion
to dismiss. Curiously, the plaintiffs have named
Lucille Hobner and Kathleen Beecey as defendants in
this matter.
THE COURT: Were they involved in the last
.
“matter?
MR. BOLSON They were not.
10 THE COURT: Right.
11 MR. BOLSON And but what was interesting
12 about their complaint, beyond that the Entire
13 Controversy Doctrine would still apply to them, is that
14 there is not a single allegation in their complaint
15 against them. They are just simply named but there is
16 no wrongdoing that is alleged by them. So it’s hard to
17 defend an allegation if there’s no allegation actually
18 made.*
19 In addition, in regards to Lucille Hobner who
20 is a California resident and Janet Dobbs who is a South
21 Carolina resident, there is no personal jurisdiction.
22 Mr. Asatrian has sued these individuals in their
23 individual capacity, there is no personal jurisdiction
24 over them. I raised these issues in my motion to
25 dismiss and like the other issues, he did not address
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 10 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
them in his opposition at all and I presume that they
are unopposed, those issues.
To the larger issue of the Entire Controversy
Doctrine. Again, this is frankly why the Entire
Controversy Doctrine was established, in my mind. You
have -- it’s about avoiding waste, promoting efficiency
and fairness to the parties. In this case, the
. . .
plaintiffs knew exactly these claims, could have raised
them during the eight months of the Chancery
10 litigation, amended their complaint but they decided
11 not to.
12 And I say -- and I say that they knew about
13 these claims because Mr. Asatrian sent me a letter
14 indicating these exact claims during the previous
15 litigation and yet, still did not amend the complaint.
16 The letter, the demand letter to settle, was based upon
17 the claims that are actually solely in this case. So
18 he clearly knew about them in January of 2019, did
19 nothing. Case was dismissed in April -- actually,
20 April 5, 2019.
21 Ten days later, Mr. Asatrian sends me a
22 letter saying that he’s going to be filing numerous
23 lawsuits against my clients and my law firm for actions
24 that clearly he knew about, which occurred ten days
25 prior. Clearly, held -- clearly, they knew about it
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 11 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759
10
and purposely held back those claims, seemingly, so
they could start another litigation, which would just
create additional costs, additional money to my
clients. Obviously, it’s a significant, you know,
stress event
Preview
BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001) ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC Attorneys-At-Law 15 Warren Street, PH-West Hackensack, New Jersey 070601 (201) 464-5155 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY NOREEN FLUGGER and, ) MARGARET HAYES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19 ) vs. ) Civil Action ) A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED ) PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC. ) JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS, KATHLEEN BISI, ) MOTION FOR RECUSAL LUCILLE HAUBNER MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI & CONTE, P.A., JANE DOES 1-10, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), ABC CORP. I-X, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), TO: Andrew P. Bolson, Esq. Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli & Conte,P.A. One Paragon Drive, Suite 240 Montvale, New Jersey 07645 Attorney for Defendants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Friday, December 4, 2020, at 9:00 in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will apply to the BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, at the Bergen County Courthouse in Hackensack, New Jersey, for an Order for recusal. Attached hereto is a certification upon which reliance is made. Also attached is a form of Order. Oral argument is waived unless timely opposition is filed. I hereby certify that the original of this Motion and supporting documents is being e-filed with the County Clerk in Bergen, Hackensack, New Jersey and served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff as noted above. Asatrian Law Group, LLC Attorney for Plaintiffs By: Li Martin V. Asatrian DATED: November 20, 2020 BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001) ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC Attorneys-At-Law 15 Warren Street, PH-West Hackensack, New Jersey 070601 (201) 464-5155 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY NOREEN FLUGGER and, ) MARGARET HAYES, ) Plaintiffs, ) DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19 vs. Civil Action A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC. JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS, KATHLEEN BISI, ORDER LUCILLE HAUBNER MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI & CONTE, P.A., JANE DOES 1-10, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), ABC CORP. I-X, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), THIS MATTER being opened to the Court by Martin V. Asatrian Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, for an Order to compel discovery, and the Court having reviewed the papers submitted and for good cause shown, IT IS on this day of December 2020, ORDERED that Motion for Recusal be granted in its entirety; and BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a true copy of this order be served upon the attorneys for Defendant within days of the date hereof. JS.C. BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001) ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC Attorneys-At-Law 15 Warren Street, PH-West Hackensack, New Jersey 070601 (201) 464-5155 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY NOREEN FLUGGER and, ) MARGARET HAYES, ) Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19 vs. Civil Action A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC. JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS, KATHLEEN BISI, CERTIFICATION LUCILLE HAUBNER MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI & CONTE, P.A., JANE DOES 1-10, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), ABC CORP. I-X, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), I, Martin V. Asatrian, certify and, say: 1 I am an Attorney at Law of the State of New Jersey and the attorney for Plaintiff, and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this matter. 2. Counsel for Plaintiff hereby makes the following motion for your recusal and disqualification, pursuant to R. 1:12-2; N.J.S.A. 2A:15-49; Bonnet v. Stewart, 155 N.J. Super. 326,382 A.2d 930 (App. Div. 1978), See also Clawans v. Schakat, 49 N.J. Super. 415,140 A.2d 234 (App. Div. 1958). Kindly be advised, submission of a recusal BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 motion to the challenged judge is not only required by statute and rule, but also sound practice. Such a serious motion is also in the best interest of the clients and parties in this case. Counsel for plaintiff, respectfully requests Your Honor at your discretion to appoint three disinterested persons to decide the motion to recuse which is permissible by statute. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-50. See Clawans v. Waugh, 10 N.J. Super. 605, 77 A.2d 519 (Cty. Dist.Ct.1950). Otherwise, a party that may be dissatisfied with a denial of a recusal motion may appeal. 3 In the case at bar, Plaintiffs who are highly reputable members of the nursing community filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. a Bergen County law firm with retired Bergen County Judges Conte, Retired (Bergen County Judge), and Retired Bergen County Judge Carroll being either of Counsel or a named Counsel at the time of the action. In fact, Retired Bergen County Judge Carroll contacted Plaintiffs Counsel on this very case. 4. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A., and the A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc et. Al. Margaret Hayes, a member of the board of A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc., for over twenty-five (25 years). The causes of action of the lawsuit against the law firm were for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and other related causes of action. The causes of action against the AA Registry were for retaliation, harassment, defamation, and other related causes of action. After the lawsuit was timely and properly filed, Andrew Bolson filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of filing an Answer. It is important to note, Andrew Bolson was a named party and a partner of the firm and an advocate in a prior action in the Chancery Division. BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 3 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 5 At oral arguments on January 10, 2020 before Your Honor, Plaintiff's Counsel made an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. John A. Conte, Jr. Esq., and Andrew Bolson made appearances on behalf of the law firm and the co-defendant AA Registry (Please see complete and unabridged transcripts of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Filing an Answer as Exhibit A). Your Honor stated that Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and Conte, P.A., is clearly precluded since there was no “attorney-client relationship” between the plaintiff and the defendant law firm. “A law firm has a right to represent their clients.” (Exhibit A; Transcript 1-10). Your Honor dismissed every single count against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. with prejudice, without the law firm filing an Answer, and without limited discovery, and without depositions, without any fact investigation whatsoever based on the fact Ms. Hayes who never waived her right to attorney client privilege. Ms. Hayes was and still is a member of the board of A &A Registry that is being represented by the Meyerson law firm against her rights as a client, member, and party. 6 On August 8, 2019, on a telephone conference by your Honor on a case entitled Asatrian v. Bergen Catholic et. al (Ber-L-001440-18) (where Counsel for the Plaintiffs was named as a Third Party Defendant), Your Honor made the following statements on the record (See Attached Exhibit B: Transcript of Telephone Conference pages 1 through 54), without any discovery being propounded by any party whatsoever. In the absence of any discovery, in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor by a wrestling coach, the following statements were made in the order of appearance by Your Honor. BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 4 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 7 It is important to note, Your Honor is required as a respected member of the Judiciary and having been specifically trained as to sensitivity and accordingly on these type of highly traumatic cases to set the appropriate tone of the courtroom. Especially when it comes to sensitive matters like domestic violence, sexual abuse and sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn, and respectful, not demeaning, or sophomoric. In these highly sensitive cases, a Superior Court Judge is not to make comments or remarks about “fun and games.” See Attached as Exhibit C In the Matter of John F. Russo, Jr. (D-100-18) (082636) (Writing by Justice Rabner. C.J. writing for the Court. 8 In the case referenced above, the Your Honor used the following words in a highly sensitive case before any evidence was ever produced, “We need to have them all come in for a big old dog and pony show,” “That story is a story that would be great— be great for all the press and for tabloid journalism in general,” “all the histrionics,” “And so of course, now what’s going to happen is I’m going to get a bunch of jurors, like Frances McDormand here, the police chief from Fargo. We’re going to have common sense, and they’re going to see right through it. But—but we have to destroy everybody in the process,” “And then when we get to the endgame, then we will have a big old party in my courtroom...,” And—of course—well, it’s fun but, of course, it’s going to be just a completely destructive war with no endgame other than vengeance and revenge and destruction and histrionics.” “Which will be fun too for, everybody except for the parties and for the jurors and anybody who---but it will be good for the lawyers.” 9 Your Honor further states at the conference, “Well, that’s his tough luck. I’m—if they want a deposition before he goes to school, fine. But he (the plaintiff) BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 5 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 decided---maybe he didn’t. Maybe there were people behind him. But he decided he wanted to sue and destroy some people’s reputation for some money because of damages he incurred, so he brought this on.” Your Honor is referring to the Plaintiff in the above- referenced case on the record. Your Honor further states the following on the record below in connection with his thoughts on a motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an Answer. “Okay.. So then you kind understand how motions to dismiss (in lieu of to the Flugger Case), are generally never ever given. And so it would be would be what we call a Pyrrhic Victory, and we don’t want any more Pyrrhic victories.” 10. Your Honor denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice on one case without creating a record for purposes of an Appeal or holding oral arguments, and yet Your Honor granted with prejudice Meyerson’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer with Prejudice. Your Honor further states, “We do not want any more dog and pony shows. We want a final conclusive battle royale with complete destruction of everyone all at the end.” Your further states on the record without any exchange of written discovery, without any inspections, without any depositions, without any evidence whatsoever, “Yeah, well, it won’t be that much of a pleasure if you all decide to destroy a bunch of individuals in this lawsuit for no real gain. It---I guess there’s the old expression “there’s no there there.” “And I understand what started this off and the revenge.” Judge Wilson ends the hearing on the record, “Except that the litigation itself is that carnage. Have fun, gentlemen.” 11. With the most utmost respect Your Honor made adverse rulings to Plaintiff's counsel in this case. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and ordered Your Honor sua sponte to make findings of law and fact as to the decision to BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 6 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 deny a prior victim to testify. (See Attached Exhibit D). Your honor on or about September 21, 2020, ordered a “litigation shield” for your law clerk Jade Sobh and instructed Counsel not to discuss this matter with Mr. Sobh without any explanation whatsoever and in an untimely fashion 20 days after the hiring of the law clerk.(See attached as Exhibit E; Litigation Shield Order)(See also Exhibit F; Your Honor’s Order compelling telephone records with no attorney-client privilege protections whatsoever)(See also attached as Exhibit G; Plaintiff's Counsel Interlocutory Appeal as to the Compulsion by Judge Wilson of Telephone Records) (See also attached Exhibit H; Judge Wilson’s March 30, 2020 Status Conference). 12. In conclusion, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks in the best interests of his clients and public confidence in the Judiciary that Your Honor kindly recuse yourself for the following reasons, laws set forth above, and facts set forth above and attached as exhibits. In order to avoid adverse appearances, Plaintiff's Counsel kindly asks with the utmost respect and deference that Your Honor appoint a three-member panel in order to have a hearing on this matter in order to avoid yet another appeal to the Appellate Division. Of course, Your Honor may choose a panel of Judges as permitted by Statute to hear the motion. After long and serious deliberation, in the best interests of my clients, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully and tactfully requests your recusal. As stated in the outset of this filing, this motion for recusal is required of counsel and it is permitted by statute, is in the best interests of the clients, and equally importantly Plaintiffs Counsel should have to worry about zealously representing his clients before Your Honor, and at the same time, filing Appeals against Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant for fear of reprisal by Your Honor. BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 7 of 7 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks that Your Honor appreciate the great difficulty, complexity, and calculation is required in appearing before Your Honor as a zealous advocate on one hand, and at the same time, appearing before Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant. Your Honor can solve the precarious position Plaintiff's Counsel finds himself along with his precious clients, by simply recusing yourself from the cases in which Plaintiff's Counsel is an advocate. Your Honor I plead with this fine Court to recuse yourself in the best interests of the clients, public confidence, and in the best lif interests of justice. DATE: November 20, 2020 Martin V. Asatrian BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 Martin V. Asatrian, Esq. (003542001) ASATRIAN LAW GROUP, LLC Attorneys-At-Law 15 Warren Street, PH-West Hackensack, New Jersey 070601 (201) 464-5155 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ) LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY NOREEN FLUGGER and, ) MARGARET HAYES, ) Plaintiffs, DOCKET NO. BER-L-7546-19 vs. Civil Action A&A RIDGEWOOD REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOC. JANET KELLY, JANET DOBBS, KATHLEEN BISI, PROOF OF SERVICE LUCILLE HAUBNER MEYERSON, FOX, MACINELLI & CONTE, P.A., JANE DOES 1-10, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), ABC CORP. I-X, (said names being fictitious, true names presently unknown), Thereby certify that a copy of this motion and any accompanying pages are being e-filed with the Court. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. Asatrian Law Group, LLC Attomey for,Defendant 4 Yip 7 By: DATED: November 22 ,2020 artinV. Asatrian BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 1 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 EXHIBIT A BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 2 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 SUPERIOR co OR T OF NEW JE LAW DIVIStIo; RSEY N: CIVIL PA BERGEN Coun iT RT DOCKET No.: BER-L-7546~1 A.D, 9 NOREEN FLUGGE ee R AND GARET HAYES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TRANSCRIPT vs. MOTION A&A RIDGEW jo oD REGISTERED PROFESSION. IAL NURSES ASSOCTATIO} N, ET AL., Defendants. ) Place: BergenCou nty Justice 10 Main st reet Center Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 BEFORE: Date: January 10, 2020 HONORABLE ROBERT Cc. WILSON, J.S.c, TRANSCRIPT ORDERED By: JOSEPH Pp, FITENI, ESQ., (Coughlin Duffy, L.L.P.) APPEARANCES: MARTIN ASATRI AN, EsQ. Attorney for Plai ntiffs ANDREW BOL, ‘SO ie N, ESQ. AND JOHN A. co NTE, & Conte, P.A.) JR., EsQ., (Meyerson Fox Mancinelli Attorneys fo r Defendants Transcriber: Nitsa Carroz PHOENIX TRANSC za RIPTION 796 Macopin Ro. ad West Milford, NJ 07480 (862) 248-0670 Audio Recorded Recording Op r: Maria Marcano BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 3 of 157 Trans ID LCV20202117759 INVE sS DEX Colloquy re: Housekeeping Po tee PAGE e e e e et e, 34 MOT e ZION hTO DI SU DISM SMIS ISS: s: ARGUMENTS; BY: Mr. Bolson PAGE BY: Mr. Asatrian 4,22 12,28 Tv HE LO =e COUR URT: T: Decision PAGE 32 BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 4 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 (Proceeding commenced at 10:05:05 a.m.) THE COURT: This is the matter of Noreen Flugger and Margaret Hayes Versus A&A Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Associa tion, Janet Kell Janet Dobbs Kathleen Beece honetic Lucille Hobner (phonetic) Meyerson Fox, Mancinelli and Conte, P.A, Counsel, can I have your appearances on L-7546- . 19? Go ahead, plaintif¢ first. MR. ASATRIAN: Good morning, Your Honor, 10 Martin Asatrian, A-s- A-T-R-I-A-N, from , the Asatrian Law 11 Group, 15 Warren Street, Hackensack, New Jersey. I 12 represent the plaintiffs, Ms. Noreen Flugger and Ms. 13 Margaret Hayes, 14 THE COURT: Yeah, I know you've been to court 15 before, currently with the Chancery Division, 16 MR. ASATRIAN: I was, Your Honor I was. 17 THE COURT: All right. Counsel, can I have 18 your appearances, please? ‘ 19 MR. BOLSON: Good morning, Your Honor, Andrew 20 Bolson from the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli 21 and Conte, on behalf of the defendants and 1 have -- 22 MR. CONTE: May it please the Court, Your 23 Honor, John Conte, Jr., also with Meyerson, Fox, 24 Mancinelli and Conte, also on behalf of the defendants. 25 THE COURT: All right. You guys are the BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 5 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 movants. MR. BOLSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: But it’s all kind of mixed in here. So you have -- like count nine, the claims against your law firm. Do you want to do with that one first? MR. BOLSON I would love to, Your Honor. . THE COURT: And then we’1l break them down to other counts. 10 MR. BOLSON I’m frankly disturbed by the 11 count, Your Honor -- 12 THE COURT: Well, don’t be disturbed. This 13 is -- this is the business we have chosen. 14 MR. BOLSON: Yeah, you’re right but Mr, 15 Asatrian has decided to file a lawsuit against my law 16 firm for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty 17 and promissory estoppel or not -- 18 THE COURT: Well, you represented his client? 19 MR. BOLSON: We did not represent his client. 20 THE COURT: They’ re suing you for malpractice 21 and you didn’t represent the client? 22 MR. BOLSON: I don’t -- yeah -- 23 THE COURT: I see. that Now, sometimes can 24 happen but those facts are very discrete and you’re 25 saying those facts don’t exist in this case? BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 6 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 5 MR. BOLSON: Not at all. We don’t understand it and we pleaded that and what I -- in his opposition, he doesn’t even address it. He doesn’t even address at all the issues of the counts against my firm. So I presume that they’re actually unopposed, that’s how I took them. THE COURT: Okay, all right. So we'll get the -- now, counts one and two and I made allusions that there would -- was a Chancery Division matter, Do 10 you want to talk about those two counts? 11 MR. BOLSON: Let me just get out the -- 12 MR. CONTE: Need the complaint? 13 MR. BOLSON: Just give me one second to get 14 my brief, Your Honor, so I can talk about counts one 15 and two, which are the -- I believe it’s the defamation 16 count, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: And emotional distress, I think, 18 no? * 19 MR. BOLSON: “yes. In terms of the defamation 20 count, plaintiff’s complaint doesn’t even indicate a 21 defamatory statement. In order to have a defamation, 22 you have to have a -- you have to state the statement 23 which you claim to be defamatory. In the previous 24 litigation, during the dep -- 25 THE COURT: Yep, that’s all right, keep BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 7 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 going. MR. BOLSON: In the previous litigation, at the deposition of Ms. Kelly, Mr. Asatrian discussed numerous times a statement that -- that my client claims that she said that his client was untrustworthy. Possibly, that’s the statement that he claims to be defamatory. If that was the case, her deposition was in -- the statute of limitations would have run on that. 10 So -- but we can’t even argue -- we don’t 11 even know which statement it is or when the statement 12 was made, so it’s hard to even say whether a statute 13 had run or not because you don’t have a statement, 14 which is, as a preliminary matter, it fails to state a 15 cause of action. 16 THE COURT: And then emotional distress? 17 MR. BOLSON: I mean, for the same reasons. I 18 mean, all these actions are related to the ~- to the 19 previous matter. The entire -- I mean, we briefed the 20 Entire Controversy Doctrine at length because we 21 believe it absolutely applies in this case. 22 Ms. Flugger was removed as a trustee 23 organization, as a founding member, in August of 2018 24 right when the prior litigation was commencing. They 25 had eight months to amend their complaint. They BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 8 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 proceeded to effectively act in that litigation, as if those matters were part of the litigation. He says, you know, Judge DeLuca only gave him 90 days worth of discovery. They chose to spend those 90 days on these issues, that’ s what the subject of the discovery was. I attended those depositions and that’s what the discovery was. . To also pinpoint -- to -- to go back to t he legal malpractice and the matters involving my firm, I 10 also noticed in his opposition that he addresses issues 11 on conflict and is seeking now to disqualify my law 12 firm without even filing a cross motion, which I was a 13 little confused by and also without citing any case law 14 as to why that would be relevant or how that would 15 possibly be. 16 But in any case, what I was also disturbed by 17 was that, he claims that my client says in the 18 deposition that I directed my ckient to terminate Ms. 19 Flugger. He neither cites to the transcript, provides 20 the transcript and frankly, it just didn’t happen. I 21 have gone through the transcript, beyond being there. 22 She never said that comment and that, I find to be very 23 disturbing that, that comment wouldn’t be made and it’s 24 frankly not in the transcript and it never occurred. 25 THE COURT: Okay. BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 9 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 MR. BOLSON: As to the other allegations -- THE COURT: The other counts, yeah. MR. BOLSON: ~~ are the subject of my motion to dismiss. Curiously, the plaintiffs have named Lucille Hobner and Kathleen Beecey as defendants in this matter. THE COURT: Were they involved in the last . “matter? MR. BOLSON They were not. 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 MR. BOLSON And but what was interesting 12 about their complaint, beyond that the Entire 13 Controversy Doctrine would still apply to them, is that 14 there is not a single allegation in their complaint 15 against them. They are just simply named but there is 16 no wrongdoing that is alleged by them. So it’s hard to 17 defend an allegation if there’s no allegation actually 18 made.* 19 In addition, in regards to Lucille Hobner who 20 is a California resident and Janet Dobbs who is a South 21 Carolina resident, there is no personal jurisdiction. 22 Mr. Asatrian has sued these individuals in their 23 individual capacity, there is no personal jurisdiction 24 over them. I raised these issues in my motion to 25 dismiss and like the other issues, he did not address BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 10 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 them in his opposition at all and I presume that they are unopposed, those issues. To the larger issue of the Entire Controversy Doctrine. Again, this is frankly why the Entire Controversy Doctrine was established, in my mind. You have -- it’s about avoiding waste, promoting efficiency and fairness to the parties. In this case, the . . . plaintiffs knew exactly these claims, could have raised them during the eight months of the Chancery 10 litigation, amended their complaint but they decided 11 not to. 12 And I say -- and I say that they knew about 13 these claims because Mr. Asatrian sent me a letter 14 indicating these exact claims during the previous 15 litigation and yet, still did not amend the complaint. 16 The letter, the demand letter to settle, was based upon 17 the claims that are actually solely in this case. So 18 he clearly knew about them in January of 2019, did 19 nothing. Case was dismissed in April -- actually, 20 April 5, 2019. 21 Ten days later, Mr. Asatrian sends me a 22 letter saying that he’s going to be filing numerous 23 lawsuits against my clients and my law firm for actions 24 that clearly he knew about, which occurred ten days 25 prior. Clearly, held -- clearly, they knew about it BER-L-007546-19 11/20/2020 2:23:40 PM Pg 11 of 157 Trans ID: LCV20202117759 10 and purposely held back those claims, seemingly, so they could start another litigation, which would just create additional costs, additional money to my clients. Obviously, it’s a significant, you know, stress event