Preview
PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617
TOMAS ESPINOSA, Esq.
Attorney at Law
8324 Kennedy Blvd.
North Bergen, NJ 07047
Tel: (201) 223-1803
E-mail: te@lawespinosa.com
E-mail: attespinosalawfirm@gmail.com
N.J. Bar. Att. Id. No. 025691985 N.Y. Bar.
October 3, 2022.
Clerk, Law Division
Passaic County Superior Court
Civil Division
77 Hamilton Street
Paterson, NJ 07505
Re: Juan Estrella v. City of Union City, et al.
Docket No. PAS-L-00983-22
Response to 09/29/2022 David V. Calviello, Esq.’s letter (LCV20223499030)
Dear Sir or Madam:
This office together with the office of Yasmin Estrella, Esq., represents, as co- counsels,
the Plaintiff, Juan Estrella, in the above referenced case.
This letter is the response to defendants’ attorney, David V. Calviello, Esq. dated
September 29, 2022, filed electronically in the present case addressed to the Clerk of the Law
Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and sent to us by his associate Gianna A. Bove,
Esq. on September 30, 2022 via email.
The defendants’ attorney had accused frivolously the plaintiffs’ attorneys of tactics to
deny the defendants an opportunity to participate in their defense, when in fact the one that from
the initiation of this lawsuit, that has engaged in the tactics of removal of a case that there was no
need of removal to the federal court are the defendants’ attorneys, because all parties in the case
including all witnesses are New Jersey state residents and therefore there was no need of removal
in light of no diversity of citizenship of parties, and the courts of New Jersey have competent
jurisdiction over matters arising under federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution, as well as, under
the New Jersey statutes, laws, regulations and constitution, the removal was done with the aim of
delay and because the costs for a lay person against a governmental unit are substantially higher
than in state court e.g depositions transcripts are not free for the parties not proposing the
deposition) and also, possibly, because one of the team of the defendants’ attorneys, until
recently, clerked in the same district federal court under one, if not several judges, in the district
having therefore inside knowledge of the propensities of the judges therein.
PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617
The defendants’ attorneys did not only engage in this conduct but when the plaintiff
decided to make a motion together with the filing of a redaction of the amended complaint for
the purpose of not having explicitly the names of the police officers who the complaint alleges
committed bad deeds, in an effort to avoid alleged embarrassment to the family of those police
officers, and moved for leave to amend the complaint to eliminate the claims under federal
statutes that the original complaint had (42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and a second one under the U.S.
Civil Right Act) they did not only oppose it, but despite the fact that the federal judge told them
of the inevitability of the remand to the Superior Court of New Jersey, sending the parties to
discuss the language of an stipulation of the remand, that eventually was entered after agreement,
still the defendant's attorneys used another tactic: they wanted to discuss how the remand was to
be effected which again was an additional tactic to delay and increase costs for the plaintiff and
sought the use of those conference as a method to inquire the line of arguments reasonings and
proofs that the plaintiff intended to follow and conduct. The remand was ordered on August 2,
2022, and since they had been served with the agreed by all parties amended redacted complaint
on July 15, 2022 (Stipulation of Remand paragraph # 11) as a matter of fact, the 35 days to
answer the amended redacted complaint was due on August 19, 2022. The defendants took more
than 39 days to realize that they were in default, after August 19, 2022, even after plaintiff had
filed his request to enter default on September 28, 2022, against the defendants.
The appropriate action that the defendants’ attorneys should have done was to, as soon as
the order of remand was entered, and since they had filed their notices of appearances with the
State Court was to ask us for a consent order extending the time to answer but this was never
done. What was done was to try to delay more and have a conference on matters that are the
subject of case, while they wanted to discuss when they had to file their answer without any
overt request of extension together with other issues that had nothing to do with the filing of their
response to the amended redacted complaint and are usually the subject of a court management
conference with a judge for a case that has to be determined by the court under what tract the
case will have to go forward.
Defendants’ attorneys also wanted to hold a conference on matters that there was nothing
to confer about, such as wrongdoings by Union City Police Officers that were public and even
subjected to court actions that ended up being promoted before the plaintiff when he was the one
in line to be promoted, and that they wanted plaintiff to agree to be labeled these public deeds as
confidential when of their own nature they were not. The defendants’ attorneys may be under the
pressure, if any, of the municipality to avoid the knowledge and records of their police officers'
bad deeds that were promoted despite their conduct, while alleging plaintiff’s supposed conduct
to deny his promotion for which he was the person with priority in the Union City’s Police list.
We expressed to the defendants' attorneys that they had no basis to make these deeds confidential
and declined to meet with them to discuss confidentiality because there was nothing to discuss.
These conferences all aimed to delay, auscultation of plaintiffs’ attorneys' aims and the creation
of expenses for the plaintiff.
We are co-counsels, but each has his/her separate office and have other commitments
plus our client does not have inexhaustible funds and deep pockets as the defendants, nor liability
insurance to cover any litigation for wrongful acts, as the City of Union City has. The tactics are
all of the defendants’ attorneys and have always been.
PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617
On August 2, 2022, the case was remanded from Federal Court to the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Passaic County. On August 5, 2022 the court received and filed the certified copy of
the order remanding the case by William T. Walsh, Clerk with the August 2, 2022 signed
stipulation by Honorable Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. The court should note the period of time that
was spent in the proceedings in federal court from May 15, 2022, through August 2, 2022 this
was done after the case was removed by the defendants and all of the work of avoiding by them
that the case be heard before the Superior Court of New Jersey. On August 10, 2022, Ms. Bove
filed her notice of appearance in the case, and on August 16, 2022, Mr. Calviello filed his
appearance in the present case. The email of August 16, 2022, to us from the defendants’
attorneys is, again, seeking conferences, when what was needed is that they filed their answer to
the amended redacted complaint and not the communication of having a conference, but a
request for extension to file the answer.
On August 22, 2022, I, Tomas Espinosa clearly stated that there were no issues to discuss
(apart from our unavailability as we had responded before) in respect to the remand.
The Federal Court order also stated that “we are not to engage in discussing an order of
confidentiality.” They know our position there is nothing confidential in this case.” See the
email of August 22, 2022, from Tomas Espinosa to the defendants’ attorneys attached as part of
the defendants’ exhibits to their letter to the Clerk. Therefore, there was nothing to discuss, and
there was nothing of any creation by the plaintiffs’ attorney of any delay for the defendants to
meet the rules deadline. There was nothing done by the defendants to answer the amended
redacted complaint nor in any way to seek by proposing in writing an extension with time fixed
in it for the approval of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the request to enter default because of the
non-action of the defendants, when they were told that there would not be conferences on the
topics that they wanted to discuss. The defendant had used the same tactics of delay and
auscultation during the removal to the federal court. Enough. Why could they not straight
forwardly ask for an extension to file the answer to the amended redacted complaint? The filing
of the request to enter default is not a denial to the defendants of the right that they have not
diligently pursued while engaging in the tactics of delay and auscultation by seeking unnecessary
and costly conferences, but the exercise of a valid right of the plaintiff under the rules. The
defendants’ attorneys had to be diligent, file their answer and then engage in any permissible
discussion, without seeking to delay and without the tactic of auscultation of the plaintiff’s case
outside of the discovery channels.
Having stated the above, the plaintiff consents for their filing of the answer to the
amended redacted complaint on or before October 21, 2022. We do this despite the fact that
delays for tactics are not good cause under R. 4:43-3 for setting aside a default, nor is lack of
attorney’s diligence but because, the courts standards to set aside a default are liberally applied
and usually granted except in exceptional cases See DYFSS v. v. P.W.R., 410 N.J. Super. 501,
508 (App. Div. 2009 rev’d on other grounds 205 N.J. 17 (2017).
We have signed the proposed consent order that the defendants have submitted via email
on September 30, 2022, so that this case can move forward, and we expect that there will not be
any further delays due to the defendants' untimeliness and/or inaction.
PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Tomas Espinosa
Tomas Espinosa, Esq co- counsel for Plaintiff.
TE/ve.
Via JEDS.
Cc: Yasmin Estrella, Esq,
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
Cc: Gianna A. Bove, Esq.
David Calviello, Esq.
Preview
PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 1 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617 TOMAS ESPINOSA, Esq. Attorney at Law 8324 Kennedy Blvd. North Bergen, NJ 07047 Tel: (201) 223-1803 E-mail: te@lawespinosa.com E-mail: attespinosalawfirm@gmail.com N.J. Bar. Att. Id. No. 025691985 N.Y. Bar. October 3, 2022. Clerk, Law Division Passaic County Superior Court Civil Division 77 Hamilton Street Paterson, NJ 07505 Re: Juan Estrella v. City of Union City, et al. Docket No. PAS-L-00983-22 Response to 09/29/2022 David V. Calviello, Esq.’s letter (LCV20223499030) Dear Sir or Madam: This office together with the office of Yasmin Estrella, Esq., represents, as co- counsels, the Plaintiff, Juan Estrella, in the above referenced case. This letter is the response to defendants’ attorney, David V. Calviello, Esq. dated September 29, 2022, filed electronically in the present case addressed to the Clerk of the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey and sent to us by his associate Gianna A. Bove, Esq. on September 30, 2022 via email. The defendants’ attorney had accused frivolously the plaintiffs’ attorneys of tactics to deny the defendants an opportunity to participate in their defense, when in fact the one that from the initiation of this lawsuit, that has engaged in the tactics of removal of a case that there was no need of removal to the federal court are the defendants’ attorneys, because all parties in the case including all witnesses are New Jersey state residents and therefore there was no need of removal in light of no diversity of citizenship of parties, and the courts of New Jersey have competent jurisdiction over matters arising under federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution, as well as, under the New Jersey statutes, laws, regulations and constitution, the removal was done with the aim of delay and because the costs for a lay person against a governmental unit are substantially higher than in state court e.g depositions transcripts are not free for the parties not proposing the deposition) and also, possibly, because one of the team of the defendants’ attorneys, until recently, clerked in the same district federal court under one, if not several judges, in the district having therefore inside knowledge of the propensities of the judges therein. PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 2 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617 The defendants’ attorneys did not only engage in this conduct but when the plaintiff decided to make a motion together with the filing of a redaction of the amended complaint for the purpose of not having explicitly the names of the police officers who the complaint alleges committed bad deeds, in an effort to avoid alleged embarrassment to the family of those police officers, and moved for leave to amend the complaint to eliminate the claims under federal statutes that the original complaint had (42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and a second one under the U.S. Civil Right Act) they did not only oppose it, but despite the fact that the federal judge told them of the inevitability of the remand to the Superior Court of New Jersey, sending the parties to discuss the language of an stipulation of the remand, that eventually was entered after agreement, still the defendant's attorneys used another tactic: they wanted to discuss how the remand was to be effected which again was an additional tactic to delay and increase costs for the plaintiff and sought the use of those conference as a method to inquire the line of arguments reasonings and proofs that the plaintiff intended to follow and conduct. The remand was ordered on August 2, 2022, and since they had been served with the agreed by all parties amended redacted complaint on July 15, 2022 (Stipulation of Remand paragraph # 11) as a matter of fact, the 35 days to answer the amended redacted complaint was due on August 19, 2022. The defendants took more than 39 days to realize that they were in default, after August 19, 2022, even after plaintiff had filed his request to enter default on September 28, 2022, against the defendants. The appropriate action that the defendants’ attorneys should have done was to, as soon as the order of remand was entered, and since they had filed their notices of appearances with the State Court was to ask us for a consent order extending the time to answer but this was never done. What was done was to try to delay more and have a conference on matters that are the subject of case, while they wanted to discuss when they had to file their answer without any overt request of extension together with other issues that had nothing to do with the filing of their response to the amended redacted complaint and are usually the subject of a court management conference with a judge for a case that has to be determined by the court under what tract the case will have to go forward. Defendants’ attorneys also wanted to hold a conference on matters that there was nothing to confer about, such as wrongdoings by Union City Police Officers that were public and even subjected to court actions that ended up being promoted before the plaintiff when he was the one in line to be promoted, and that they wanted plaintiff to agree to be labeled these public deeds as confidential when of their own nature they were not. The defendants’ attorneys may be under the pressure, if any, of the municipality to avoid the knowledge and records of their police officers' bad deeds that were promoted despite their conduct, while alleging plaintiff’s supposed conduct to deny his promotion for which he was the person with priority in the Union City’s Police list. We expressed to the defendants' attorneys that they had no basis to make these deeds confidential and declined to meet with them to discuss confidentiality because there was nothing to discuss. These conferences all aimed to delay, auscultation of plaintiffs’ attorneys' aims and the creation of expenses for the plaintiff. We are co-counsels, but each has his/her separate office and have other commitments plus our client does not have inexhaustible funds and deep pockets as the defendants, nor liability insurance to cover any litigation for wrongful acts, as the City of Union City has. The tactics are all of the defendants’ attorneys and have always been. PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 3 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617 On August 2, 2022, the case was remanded from Federal Court to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County. On August 5, 2022 the court received and filed the certified copy of the order remanding the case by William T. Walsh, Clerk with the August 2, 2022 signed stipulation by Honorable Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. The court should note the period of time that was spent in the proceedings in federal court from May 15, 2022, through August 2, 2022 this was done after the case was removed by the defendants and all of the work of avoiding by them that the case be heard before the Superior Court of New Jersey. On August 10, 2022, Ms. Bove filed her notice of appearance in the case, and on August 16, 2022, Mr. Calviello filed his appearance in the present case. The email of August 16, 2022, to us from the defendants’ attorneys is, again, seeking conferences, when what was needed is that they filed their answer to the amended redacted complaint and not the communication of having a conference, but a request for extension to file the answer. On August 22, 2022, I, Tomas Espinosa clearly stated that there were no issues to discuss (apart from our unavailability as we had responded before) in respect to the remand. The Federal Court order also stated that “we are not to engage in discussing an order of confidentiality.” They know our position there is nothing confidential in this case.” See the email of August 22, 2022, from Tomas Espinosa to the defendants’ attorneys attached as part of the defendants’ exhibits to their letter to the Clerk. Therefore, there was nothing to discuss, and there was nothing of any creation by the plaintiffs’ attorney of any delay for the defendants to meet the rules deadline. There was nothing done by the defendants to answer the amended redacted complaint nor in any way to seek by proposing in writing an extension with time fixed in it for the approval of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the request to enter default because of the non-action of the defendants, when they were told that there would not be conferences on the topics that they wanted to discuss. The defendant had used the same tactics of delay and auscultation during the removal to the federal court. Enough. Why could they not straight forwardly ask for an extension to file the answer to the amended redacted complaint? The filing of the request to enter default is not a denial to the defendants of the right that they have not diligently pursued while engaging in the tactics of delay and auscultation by seeking unnecessary and costly conferences, but the exercise of a valid right of the plaintiff under the rules. The defendants’ attorneys had to be diligent, file their answer and then engage in any permissible discussion, without seeking to delay and without the tactic of auscultation of the plaintiff’s case outside of the discovery channels. Having stated the above, the plaintiff consents for their filing of the answer to the amended redacted complaint on or before October 21, 2022. We do this despite the fact that delays for tactics are not good cause under R. 4:43-3 for setting aside a default, nor is lack of attorney’s diligence but because, the courts standards to set aside a default are liberally applied and usually granted except in exceptional cases See DYFSS v. v. P.W.R., 410 N.J. Super. 501, 508 (App. Div. 2009 rev’d on other grounds 205 N.J. 17 (2017). We have signed the proposed consent order that the defendants have submitted via email on September 30, 2022, so that this case can move forward, and we expect that there will not be any further delays due to the defendants' untimeliness and/or inaction. PAS-L-000983-22 10/03/2022 5:58:28 PM Pg 4 of 4 Trans ID: LCV20223523617 Respectfully submitted /s/ Tomas Espinosa Tomas Espinosa, Esq co- counsel for Plaintiff. TE/ve. Via JEDS. Cc: Yasmin Estrella, Esq, Co-counsel for Plaintiff Cc: Gianna A. Bove, Esq. David Calviello, Esq.