Preview
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pglof5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061
K-L-UU0Y9/4-15 VOIZZIZUTY SINS / PIM Fg 1 OTS Ifans IU: LUVZU1YYU3YUU,
Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Valacer, Esq.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
Florham Park, NJ 07932 FILED
Tel: 973-549-2500
Fax: 973-377-1911 JUN 2.4 2019
psiachos@grsm.com
jvalacer@grsm.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff ee MARZ
Affinity Federal Credit Union
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
SUNAGMED LLC. LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
Plaintiff,
DOCKET NO.: BER-L-6974-18
-against-
AFFINITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, COMPEL PURSUANT TO R. 4:23-1
-and-
GREATER ALLIANCE CREDIT UNION
Third Party Defendant
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. .
LLP, attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Affinity Federal Credit Union for an order
compelling (a) more-specific answers by Plaintiff
to Affinity’s discovery demands and (b)
Plaintiff's deposition, and the Court having reviewed the papers and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this a day of On) AN L > 2019
ORDERED, that Affinity’s motion to compel be and hereby is granted in its entirety;
and
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg2of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061
K-L-WU0Y/4-15 VO/ZZ/ZU1Y SYS FM Fg Z OTS rans 1D: LUVZUTYYUSYUU
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall provide more-specific answers to the
Affinity’s Interrogatories Numbers 5 — 8, 15 — 17, 23, and 40 — 41 on or before Wiprircoins Jt ly AYO
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall provide more-specific answers, as
well as all responsive documents thereto, to Affinity’s Requests for Production Numbers 3, 5 — 7,
14-16, 18 — 19, and 24
— 29 on or before 9° and
Jal AY,
A O\4
IT IS FURTHER OREDERED, that Plaintiffs deposition shall be conducted on or
before July 31, 2019; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the electronic filing of this order shall be good and
sufficient service on all parties of record.
DATE:
BY: | I {C_—
JS.C
plorposen RACHELLE L. HARZ, J.S.C.
artaclad
“UNopPos ED
Pee
Rider
Date: May 22, 2019
By: // Jeffrey P. Valacer
Jeffrey P. Valacer
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg3o0f5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061
RIDER
Sunagmed LLC v Affinity Federal Credit Union
BER-L-6974-18
Counsel were present for oral argument on June 24, 2019. Jay Chatarpaul, Esq. appeared for
Plaintiff Sunagmed LLC and Jeffrey P. Valacer, Esq. appeared for Defendant Affinity Federal
Credit Union (Affinity). Before this court was Affinity’s Motion for more specific answers to
interrogatories, as well as complete responses to A ffinity’s Notice to Produce. This court addressed
the first issue, dealing with Plaintiffs responses to interrogatories Nos. 5-7, wherein Plaintiff was
directed to state in writing that expert witnesses would not be utilized at any point in time during
this litigation as the answer provided was not clear, as the answer stated, “[T]here are no expert
witnesses.” Thereafter, this court addressed interrogatory No. 12 wherein Affinity sought
description of every communication between Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant GreaterAlliance
Federal Credit Union (GAFCU). Plaintiff had responded that it did not have any agreement or
business relationship with GAFCU. This court found that Plaintiff was required to respond to this
interrogatory as Plaintiff had deposited Check No. 33145 (the check) from Ocean First Bank dated
June 4, 2018, at a Greater Alliance Branch. Plaintiff's counsel asked the relevance of providing
this information and the court again provided a response. Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue
with the court that the interrogatory was not relevant. This court indicated that the next
interrogatory was going to be addressed, but Plaintiff's counsel kept arguing the relevance of
interrogatory No. 12 and would not let this court continue. This court asked if it was necessary to
summon a Sheriffs Officer. Plaintiff's counsel then indicated he was going to file a motion for
recusal. This court terminated oral argument at that time and indicated a written decision would
be provided.
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg4of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061
Plaintiff is ordered to serve specific discovery responses to the following requests:
Interrogatory Nos. 5-7: Plaintiff is ordered to confirm that the services of an expert witness
will or will not be used at any time in this case. If an expert witness is going to be used,
plaintiffs are ordered to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 5-6 and all of their subparts.
Interrogatory No. 12: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a complete and specific response to
No. 12 and all of its subparts for a time period starting on the day of the deposit until the
present. This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify each and every communication
between Plaintiff and GAFCU. Plaintiff deposited the check, which is at the crux of this
litigation, with GAFCU. Therefore, these communication are relevant and must be
provided.
Interrogatory Nos. 15-17: Plaintiff is ordered to provide specific and complete answers to
No. 15, and all of its subparts, and Nos. 16-17. These interrogatories ask Plaintiff for
detailed information regarding Plaintiff's relationship with the issuer of the check, Lowy’s
Express. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is suing Lowy’s Express in a separate litigation regarding the same
series and transactions in the instant matter,
Interrogatory No. 23: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to
Interrogatory No. 23. Affinity has a right to know Plaintiff's process for accepting and
honoring checks. This matter revolves around the accepting, honoring, and processing of a
check. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Interrogatory No. 40: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to
Interrogatory No. 40. Plaintiff has asserted that their attempts to mitigate their damages are
limited to repeatedly contacting Affinity. Given that Plaintiff is also suing Lowy’s Express
over the same series of transactions, Plaintiff is ordered to confirm that repeatedly
contacting Affinity is the extent of their attempts to mitigate damages.
Interrogatory No, 41: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to
Interrogatory No. 41. It is known that Plaintiff is also suing Lowy’s Express over the same
series of transactions.
Document Request No. 3: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response
to Request No. 3. This request seeks all contracts, agreement, addenda, and riders between
Plaintiff and Lowy’s Express. This case revolves around a check given to, and subsequently
retracted from, Plaintiff by Lowy’s Express as payment for services. These requests are
proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 5: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response
to Request No. 5. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg5of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061
GAFCU. Plaintiff deposited the check with GAFCU. These requests are proper and
relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 6: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response
to Request No. 6. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and
Lowy. Plaintiff deposited a check from Lowy’s, which was subsequently retracted by
Lowy’s, which is the basis for this litigation. These requests are proper and relevant to the
subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 7: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response
to Request No. 7. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and
local authorities related to the check. The accompanying lawsuit against Lowy’s makes
factual allegations concerning fraud as it relates to the series of transactions that make up
this litigation. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 14-16: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete
response to Requests Nos. 14-16. These requests seek all documents related to Plaintiff's
policies and/or procedures regarding depositing checks and banking policies. This
litigation is centered on the deposit of a check by Plaintiff. These requests are proper and
televant to the subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 18-19: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete
response to Requests Nos. 18-19. These requests seek copies of Plaintiffs account file and
documents for Lowy’s Express. This litigation is centered on a check provided to Plaintiffs
from Lowy’s as a payment for services. These requests are proper and relevant to the
subject matter of this litigation.
Document Request No. 24-29: See court’s ruling on Interrogatory No. 1. If an expert will
be used at any point in this litigation Requests Nos. 24-29 must be answered.
Preview
BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pglof5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061 K-L-UU0Y9/4-15 VOIZZIZUTY SINS / PIM Fg 1 OTS Ifans IU: LUVZU1YYU3YUU, Peter G. Siachos, Esq. Jeffrey P. Valacer, Esq. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP 18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220 Florham Park, NJ 07932 FILED Tel: 973-549-2500 Fax: 973-377-1911 JUN 2.4 2019 psiachos@grsm.com jvalacer@grsm.com Attorneys for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff ee MARZ Affinity Federal Credit Union SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY SUNAGMED LLC. LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: BER-L-6974-18 -against- AFFINITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, COMPEL PURSUANT TO R. 4:23-1 -and- GREATER ALLIANCE CREDIT UNION Third Party Defendant THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. . LLP, attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Affinity Federal Credit Union for an order compelling (a) more-specific answers by Plaintiff to Affinity’s discovery demands and (b) Plaintiff's deposition, and the Court having reviewed the papers and for good cause shown; IT IS on this a day of On) AN L > 2019 ORDERED, that Affinity’s motion to compel be and hereby is granted in its entirety; and BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg2of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061 K-L-WU0Y/4-15 VO/ZZ/ZU1Y SYS FM Fg Z OTS rans 1D: LUVZUTYYUSYUU IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall provide more-specific answers to the Affinity’s Interrogatories Numbers 5 — 8, 15 — 17, 23, and 40 — 41 on or before Wiprircoins Jt ly AYO and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall provide more-specific answers, as well as all responsive documents thereto, to Affinity’s Requests for Production Numbers 3, 5 — 7, 14-16, 18 — 19, and 24 — 29 on or before 9° and Jal AY, A O\4 IT IS FURTHER OREDERED, that Plaintiffs deposition shall be conducted on or before July 31, 2019; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the electronic filing of this order shall be good and sufficient service on all parties of record. DATE: BY: | I {C_— JS.C plorposen RACHELLE L. HARZ, J.S.C. artaclad “UNopPos ED Pee Rider Date: May 22, 2019 By: // Jeffrey P. Valacer Jeffrey P. Valacer BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg3o0f5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061 RIDER Sunagmed LLC v Affinity Federal Credit Union BER-L-6974-18 Counsel were present for oral argument on June 24, 2019. Jay Chatarpaul, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Sunagmed LLC and Jeffrey P. Valacer, Esq. appeared for Defendant Affinity Federal Credit Union (Affinity). Before this court was Affinity’s Motion for more specific answers to interrogatories, as well as complete responses to A ffinity’s Notice to Produce. This court addressed the first issue, dealing with Plaintiffs responses to interrogatories Nos. 5-7, wherein Plaintiff was directed to state in writing that expert witnesses would not be utilized at any point in time during this litigation as the answer provided was not clear, as the answer stated, “[T]here are no expert witnesses.” Thereafter, this court addressed interrogatory No. 12 wherein Affinity sought description of every communication between Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant GreaterAlliance Federal Credit Union (GAFCU). Plaintiff had responded that it did not have any agreement or business relationship with GAFCU. This court found that Plaintiff was required to respond to this interrogatory as Plaintiff had deposited Check No. 33145 (the check) from Ocean First Bank dated June 4, 2018, at a Greater Alliance Branch. Plaintiff's counsel asked the relevance of providing this information and the court again provided a response. Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue with the court that the interrogatory was not relevant. This court indicated that the next interrogatory was going to be addressed, but Plaintiff's counsel kept arguing the relevance of interrogatory No. 12 and would not let this court continue. This court asked if it was necessary to summon a Sheriffs Officer. Plaintiff's counsel then indicated he was going to file a motion for recusal. This court terminated oral argument at that time and indicated a written decision would be provided. BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg4of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061 Plaintiff is ordered to serve specific discovery responses to the following requests: Interrogatory Nos. 5-7: Plaintiff is ordered to confirm that the services of an expert witness will or will not be used at any time in this case. If an expert witness is going to be used, plaintiffs are ordered to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 5-6 and all of their subparts. Interrogatory No. 12: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a complete and specific response to No. 12 and all of its subparts for a time period starting on the day of the deposit until the present. This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify each and every communication between Plaintiff and GAFCU. Plaintiff deposited the check, which is at the crux of this litigation, with GAFCU. Therefore, these communication are relevant and must be provided. Interrogatory Nos. 15-17: Plaintiff is ordered to provide specific and complete answers to No. 15, and all of its subparts, and Nos. 16-17. These interrogatories ask Plaintiff for detailed information regarding Plaintiff's relationship with the issuer of the check, Lowy’s Express. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Furthermore, Plaintiff is suing Lowy’s Express in a separate litigation regarding the same series and transactions in the instant matter, Interrogatory No. 23: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Interrogatory No. 23. Affinity has a right to know Plaintiff's process for accepting and honoring checks. This matter revolves around the accepting, honoring, and processing of a check. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Interrogatory No. 40: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Interrogatory No. 40. Plaintiff has asserted that their attempts to mitigate their damages are limited to repeatedly contacting Affinity. Given that Plaintiff is also suing Lowy’s Express over the same series of transactions, Plaintiff is ordered to confirm that repeatedly contacting Affinity is the extent of their attempts to mitigate damages. Interrogatory No, 41: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Interrogatory No. 41. It is known that Plaintiff is also suing Lowy’s Express over the same series of transactions. Document Request No. 3: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Request No. 3. This request seeks all contracts, agreement, addenda, and riders between Plaintiff and Lowy’s Express. This case revolves around a check given to, and subsequently retracted from, Plaintiff by Lowy’s Express as payment for services. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 5: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Request No. 5. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and BER L 006974-18 06/24/2019 Pg5of5 Trans ID: LCV20191111061 GAFCU. Plaintiff deposited the check with GAFCU. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 6: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Request No. 6. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and Lowy. Plaintiff deposited a check from Lowy’s, which was subsequently retracted by Lowy’s, which is the basis for this litigation. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 7: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Request No. 7. This request seeks copies of all communications between Plaintiff and local authorities related to the check. The accompanying lawsuit against Lowy’s makes factual allegations concerning fraud as it relates to the series of transactions that make up this litigation. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 14-16: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Requests Nos. 14-16. These requests seek all documents related to Plaintiff's policies and/or procedures regarding depositing checks and banking policies. This litigation is centered on the deposit of a check by Plaintiff. These requests are proper and televant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 18-19: Plaintiff is ordered to provide a specific and complete response to Requests Nos. 18-19. These requests seek copies of Plaintiffs account file and documents for Lowy’s Express. This litigation is centered on a check provided to Plaintiffs from Lowy’s as a payment for services. These requests are proper and relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Document Request No. 24-29: See court’s ruling on Interrogatory No. 1. If an expert will be used at any point in this litigation Requests Nos. 24-29 must be answered.