On November 05, 2015 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ada Caballero,
and
Cablevision Systemscorporatio,
Earnest R Pastor,
Stephany Dalton,
for Law Against Discrimination (Lad) Cases
in the District Court of Hudson County.
Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 01/05/2018 12:10:24 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV201825052
August W. Heckman III
Associate
+1.609.919.6696
august.heckman@morganlewis.com
January 5, 2018
VIA E-COURTS
Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C.
W. J. Brennan Courthouse
583 Newark Avenue, 2nd Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.
Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15
Dear Judge Turula:
We represent Defendants CSC TKR, LLC (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the
Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation), Ernest Pastor and Stephany Dalton. We write in
response to Plaintiff’s January 4, 2018 letter, which incorrectly suggests that this Court lacks
jurisdiction to decide Cablevision’s pending, unopposed Motion for Reconsideration because
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal the portion of this Court’s December 15, 2017 Order
dismissing several of Plaintiff’s claims.
The filing of a motion for leave to file an interlocutory1 appeal has no effect on this Court’s
jurisdiction over this case or its authority to decide the issue presented in Cablevision’s unopposed
Motion for Reconsideration. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not sought or been granted any stay
of this action pending her appellate motion. Rule 2:5-6 provides that “[t]he filing of a motion for
1
Because the Court’s December 15 Order did not dispose of all claims against all parties, it is
interlocutory. See McGlynn v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 23, 29 (App. Div. 2014) (for a judgment to
be final and appealable as of right, it must dispose of all claims against all parties; a summary
judgment order that dismisses some, but not all, claims or parties is interlocutory).
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
502 Carnegie Center
Princeton, NJ
08540-6241 +1.609.919.6600
United States +1.609.919.6701
A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership | Steven M. Cohen, Partner-in-Charge
HUD-L-004540-15 01/05/2018 12:10:24 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV201825052
leave to appeal shall not stay the proceedings in the trial court or agency except on motion made
to the court or agency which entered the order or if denied by it, to the appellate court.”
In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pertains only to that
portion of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment to Defendants on several claims. It does
not, and cannot, pertain to the portion of the Court’s Order denying Cablevision’s Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim since that ruling was in Plaintiff’s
favor. It is that part of the Court’s December 15, 2017 Order that is the subject of Defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, neither the filing nor the eventual outcome of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Appeal has any bearing on this Court’s jurisdiction to decide the pending
motion or on the merits of that motion.
Finally, neither Rule 2:9-1 nor Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of
Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) – cited by Plaintiff – support the position that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over this proceeding by virtue of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal. That Rule and
case deal with the instance where a notice of appeal as of right has been properly filed, not where,
as here, only leave to appeal has been sought. See Manalapan Realty, 140 N.J. at 376. Where,
like here, a party merely moves for leave to file an interlocutory appeal (which is decidedly not a
“Notice of Appeal” per Rule 2:5-1), the trial court is not deprived of jurisdiction and further
proceedings are not stayed.
Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction over this matter and is fully empowered to
decide Cablevision’s unopposed Motion for Reconsideration.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ August W. Heckman III
August W. Heckman III
cc: Jay Chatarpaul, Esq.
Sean P. Lynch, Esq.
Rudolph J. Burshnic II, Esq.
Document Filed Date
January 05, 2018
Case Filing Date
November 05, 2015
Category
Law Against Discrimination (Lad) Cases
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
HUD-L-004540-15 01/05/2018 12:10:24 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV201825052 August W. Heckman III Associate +1.609.919.6696 august.heckman@morganlewis.com January 5, 2018 VIA E-COURTS Hon. Joseph A. Turula, J.S.C. W. J. Brennan Courthouse 583 Newark Avenue, 2nd Floor Jersey City, NJ 07306 Re: Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al. Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15 Dear Judge Turula: We represent Defendants CSC TKR, LLC (“Cablevision,” incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Cablevision Systems Corporation), Ernest Pastor and Stephany Dalton. We write in response to Plaintiff’s January 4, 2018 letter, which incorrectly suggests that this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Cablevision’s pending, unopposed Motion for Reconsideration because Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Appeal the portion of this Court’s December 15, 2017 Order dismissing several of Plaintiff’s claims. The filing of a motion for leave to file an interlocutory1 appeal has no effect on this Court’s jurisdiction over this case or its authority to decide the issue presented in Cablevision’s unopposed Motion for Reconsideration. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not sought or been granted any stay of this action pending her appellate motion. Rule 2:5-6 provides that “[t]he filing of a motion for 1 Because the Court’s December 15 Order did not dispose of all claims against all parties, it is interlocutory. See McGlynn v. State, 434 N.J. Super. 23, 29 (App. Div. 2014) (for a judgment to be final and appealable as of right, it must dispose of all claims against all parties; a summary judgment order that dismisses some, but not all, claims or parties is interlocutory). Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6241 +1.609.919.6600 United States +1.609.919.6701 A Pennsylvania Limited Liability Partnership | Steven M. Cohen, Partner-in-Charge HUD-L-004540-15 01/05/2018 12:10:24 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV201825052 leave to appeal shall not stay the proceedings in the trial court or agency except on motion made to the court or agency which entered the order or if denied by it, to the appellate court.” In addition, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pertains only to that portion of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment to Defendants on several claims. It does not, and cannot, pertain to the portion of the Court’s Order denying Cablevision’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim since that ruling was in Plaintiff’s favor. It is that part of the Court’s December 15, 2017 Order that is the subject of Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, neither the filing nor the eventual outcome of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal has any bearing on this Court’s jurisdiction to decide the pending motion or on the merits of that motion. Finally, neither Rule 2:9-1 nor Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) – cited by Plaintiff – support the position that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this proceeding by virtue of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal. That Rule and case deal with the instance where a notice of appeal as of right has been properly filed, not where, as here, only leave to appeal has been sought. See Manalapan Realty, 140 N.J. at 376. Where, like here, a party merely moves for leave to file an interlocutory appeal (which is decidedly not a “Notice of Appeal” per Rule 2:5-1), the trial court is not deprived of jurisdiction and further proceedings are not stayed. Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction over this matter and is fully empowered to decide Cablevision’s unopposed Motion for Reconsideration. Respectfully submitted, s/ August W. Heckman III August W. Heckman III cc: Jay Chatarpaul, Esq. Sean P. Lynch, Esq. Rudolph J. Burshnic II, Esq.