Letter,Correspondence: Caballero Vs Cablevision Systems Corporation Et Al

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                HUD-L-004540-15          01/23/2018 6:43:50 PM         Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV2018143741




                       August W. Heckman III
                       Associate
                       +1.609.919.6696
                       august.heckman@morganlewis.com




                       January 23, 2018

                       VIA E-COURTS AND U.S. MAIL
                       Superior Court of New Jersey
                       Clerk of the Court – Law Division
                       583 Newark Avenue
                       Jersey City, NJ 07306

                       Re:     Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al.
                               Docket No. HUD-L-4540-15

                       Dear Clerk of the Court:

                       We represent Defendants and write in response to Plaintiff’s January 22, 2018 letter in “opposition”
                       to Defendants’ application for costs under Rule 4:42-8 and N.J.S.A. § 22A:2-8.
                       First, Plaintiff’s opposition is procedurally improper and should be ignored.      See Rule 4:42-8
                       (explaining that costs “shall be allowed as of course” and are only reviewable on motion).

                       Second, Plaintiff confuses Rule 4:42-8 costs with fee shifting and attorneys’ fees – two entirely
                       distinct concepts.   Defendants have not moved for attorneys’ fees.        Thus, the New Jersey Law
                       Against Discrimination’s requirement that a prevailing employer show bad faith to obtain an award
                       of attorneys’ fees is simply not applicable.    See e.g., Jackson v. The Great Atlantic, 2015 WL
                       2234566 (N.J. Super. Law Division, April 8, 2015) (order stating, after defense verdict on an age-
                       discrimination claim, that “defendants shall submit … an affidavit of costs in accordance with R.
                       4:42-8(c), and the Clerk … shall tax such costs against plaintiffs accordingly”).       Indeed, even
                       Plaintiff’s case law recognizes this simple concept.     See Buccinna v. Micheletti, 311 N.J. Super. 557,
                       565 (App. Div. 1998) (affirming in part an award of costs under Rule 4:42-8 and N.J.S.A. § 22A:2-8
                       in favor of the employer, which prevailed on the plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey
                       Conscientious Employee Protection Act).

                       Finally, Plaintiff does not argue that any of the costs sought by Defendants were not necessarily
                       incurred or not reasonable in amount, thereby waiving any such objections.           Thus, Defendants’
                       application should be granted in its entirety.

                       Respectfully submitted,

                       s/ August W. Heckman III

                       cc:      Jay Chatarpaul, Esq.
                                Sean P. Lynch, Esq.
                                Rudolph J. Burshnic II, Esq.


                                                                              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