03-2-2252 Bruchansky v. Nistad , App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Plaintiff filed a shareholder action against defendants. After the dispute was referred to mediation, the parties voluntarily entered into a settlement agreement that, among other things, provided procedures to select an appraiser and to arbitrate all outstanding issues. After the arbitrator entered an award, plaintiff filed a motion to confirm the award and Nistad filed opposition. Judge Shuster issued a written decision affirming the award and an order entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants of $66,121.71. Here, Nistad appeals, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and the trial court erred by not modifying the award and by not correcting the arbitrator’s miscalculations. Finding Nistad’s arguments without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, the appellate panel affirmed. [Decided Nov. 25, 2008.]
CIVIL PROCEDURE — GUARDIANS AD LITEM
07-2-2290 Parker v. RCG Information Technology , App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) The trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s pro se application to vacate the order appointing a guardian ad litem for her and the consent order setting forth the terms of a settlement of her employment discrimination case is reversed because the failure to give her notice of the guardian ad litem application was a fatal defect in the procedure. Also, plaintiff’s failure to either reject or accept the proposed settlement, despite numerous contacts by her attorneys, was not necessarily evidence of alleged incompetency and, in the absence of the required affidavits, the proofs were insufficient to warrant approval of the settlement without plaintiff’s consent. [Decided Dec. 2, 2008.]
