07-2-3389 Lai v. Shimoni, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Plaintiff appealed the orders denying her motion to enter default against defendants and granting defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint and for sanctions. Defendants leased two garage parking spaces from landlord. Plaintiff was the property manager of the property. New owner acquired the property and plaintiff told defendants to make rent payments to the new owner which was done. Plaintiff later demanded additional rent alleging that defendants were using more than two parking spaces. Defendants refused to pay the additional rent and plaintiff filed a pro se complaint asserting fraud, negligence and violations of the LAD and the ADA. Plaintiff admitted she only served a copy of the summons on defendants' former attorney. Plaintiff filed her motion to enter default and defendant's' current attorney responded that the complaint was frivolous and demanded that it be withdrawn. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiff lacked standing since she did not properly serve defendants or own the property and failed to plead sufficient facts. On appeal, plaintiff made no comprehensible argument warranting reversal. Furthermore, the litigation in this case was clearly frivolous and sanctionable.

07-2-3407 Gonzalez v. Michalski, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Plaintiff appealed the orders dismissing her motion to amend her complaint and dismissing her complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff alleged her next door neighbors violated N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 by harassing her by shining lights in her windows, erecting a fence on her property, putting dog feces on the property line and threatening to burn her house down. On the day of trial, neighbors hand-served a motion “in limine” to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, which motion the trial judge granted. The court found that the trial court erred in entertaining neighbors' dispositive motion on the day of trial and remanded the matter for trial. Additionally, the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the amendment would not have required additional discovery, delayed the trial or prejudiced neighbors.

09-3-3376 Pellegrino v. Nick's Towing Serv. Inc., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.) (7 pp.) Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendant car towing service alleging violations of the Predatory Towing Protection Act, the Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Plaintiff called defendant to tow her car after an accident, paid the fees listed on her invoice and sued 15 months later. The court noted that the PTPA explicitly required consumers who disputed towing company charges for a nonconsensual towing service to use good-faith efforts to resolve the dispute and offered two options for disputes that could not be resolved: the Division of Consumer Affairs could order reimbursement or the consumer could use the dispute resolution mechanism established by the municipality. Plaintiff paid the charges, never disputed them prior to filing suit and never filed a complaint with the Division of Consumer Affairs or availed herself of the municipal enforcement mechanisms. However, nothing in the statutory language pre-empted her action. Class certification was reversed because common questions of law or fact would not predominate over individual issues such as whether each class member received a service in exchange for payment.