11-2-2139 Zieger v. Pub. Serv. Enter. Grp., Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) In this wrongful termination action, appellant filed a complaint alleging violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Respondent subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment contending that plaintiff was not its employee or, in the alternative, if respondent was appellant’s employer, appellant was required to arbitrate her claims in accordance with the arbitration agreement she signed. The motion judge issued an oral decision that appellant agreed to resolve her dispute against respondent through arbitration. Respondent appealed from the Law Division’s order compelling arbitration of her claims against defendant. The court reversed holding the judge erred in finding that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. There was no offer and acceptance of an agreement binding the parties to arbitrate their disputes nor was there an indication in the record that the request to sign such an agreement was directed or authorized by respondent. Further, the court was unpersuaded by respondent’s argument that it may compel appellant to arbitrate as a non-signatory to the agreement because her claims arose out of the agreement she signed. As there was no language in the agreement which suggested that the agreement applied to non-signatories, and respondent did not assert that the agreement was signed by one of its agents or subsidiaries, the trial court erred in compelling arbitration.

15-2-2103 OneWest Bank, FSB v. Pineda, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) In February 2006, appellants executed an adjustable rate note for a loan in the amount of $297,600. Appellants gave a mortgage to secure the loan on the property to non-party IndyMac Bank, FSB, which was subsequently acquired by appellee. In 2008, appellants defaulted on the loan and stopped making payments. A foreclosure complaint was filed and personally served on appellants at the mortgaged property; appellants failed to respond and the court entered a final judgment. On July 1, 2015, appellants appeared for the first time and filed a motion to vacate the final judgment and set aside the sheriff’s sale. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, appellants argued that appellee failed to establish that it owned or controlled the note on or before entry of the final judgment. The court affirmed the trial court holding stating the record did not support appellants’ argument as they failed to identify which provisions of Rule 4:50-1 they relied on to vacate the judgment. The court held appellants failed to present evidence to support the final judgment was void or that there was an exceptional situation for the nearly five-year delay in bringing such a challenge. Therefore, the court agreed with the trial court that there was no valid basis to vacate the entry of the final judgment or the sheriff’s sale.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]