Unpublished Opinions for the Week of November 21, 2016

07-2-1820 Kleeblatt, Galler, Abramson, L.L.C. v. Feuer N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from an order vacating default judgment, a February order denying reconsideration of an order denying summary judgment and a provision in the February order denying reinstatement of the complaint under Rule 1:13-7. Plaintiff sued defendant for nonpayment of legal fees and was awarded a default judgment. Defendant’s motion to vacate the default was eventually granted because he had never been served with the summons and complaint and plaintiff was ordered to return any funds seized. Plaintiff then served a summons and complaint on defendant who argued successfully that dismissal was required because plaintiff had failed to return all seized funds. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied in February and plaintiff appealed. The court declined to consider plaintiff’s challenges to the order vacating default judgment and the motion for reconsideration of the order denying summary judgment because they were interlocutory. The court found that the complaint should have been reinstated under Rule 1:13-7 even if the complaint were to remain in a state of dismissal for plaintiff’s failure to abide by the direction to return seized funds. Plaintiff provided good cause for reinstatement because it reasonably believed defendant’s answer had been filed and both parties were litigating the matter.

07-2-1821 Malden Real Estate v. Cycle Craft, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Plaintiff and defendant both -appealed from an order awarding counsel fees to defendant in case arising from a landlord/tenant dispute. Defendant rented commercial space from plaintiff landlord and sued after a road building project affected access to defendant’s business and eliminated some of defendant’s parking places. The litigation ended with a settlement order but the litigation continued with plaintiff alleging failure to pay common area maintenance fees and defendant alleging violation of the CFA. The court denied plaintiff’s demand for possession of the premises, awarded defendant a rate abatement offset, dismissed the CFA claims and denied both parties claims for attorney fees. Defendant appealed and the court granted defendant’s attorney fee request. Plaintiff appealed and on remand, the court reconsidered the amount of fees awarded. Plaintiff again appealed the amount of fees awarded as excessive and unreasonable and the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the calculation of the lodestar and the application of line item and proportional reductions. The court conducted a thorough RPC 1.5(a) analysis of each and every entry in the billing invoices and conducted a comprehensive review of defendant’s counsel’s affidavit of services.