ZULKARNAIN KAGALWALLA VS. ANTHONY FLERES (L-4293-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0962-17T3
ZULKARNAIN KAGALWALLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY FLERES,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted September 17, 2018 – Decided October 2, 2018
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-4293-17.
Zulkarnain Kagalwalla, appellant pro se.
Methfessel & Werbel, PC, attorneys for respondent
(Jennifer M. Herrmann, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Pro se plaintiff Zulkarnain Kagalwalla appeals from the trial court's
September 15, 2017 dismissal of his defamation complaint against defendant
Anthony Fleres. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the trial
court's oral opinion of September 15, 2017. We add only the following brief
comments.
This case arises from a long-term and contentious relationship between
plaintiff and the West Windsor Plainsboro School District ("school district").
Plaintiff's animosity towards the school district stems from a January 2014
report it made to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency ("DCPP")
concerning certain comments plaintiff's daughter made at school. Plaintiff
alleges school officials wrongfully detained his daughter after school without
his knowledge or consent to allow the DCPP investigator to obtain a statement
from his daughter. In the wake of the 2014 report, plaintiff sent numerous
messages to school officials expressing his anger about the school's conduct that
ultimately resulted in plaintiff's indictment for harassment. The criminal case
was resolved when plaintiff agreed to an offer of Pre Trial Intervention ("PTI").
Plaintiff's complaint against defendant, who is the president of the school
district, alleges that defendant defamed him by posting derogatory statements
about him on a local Facebook page, the West Windsor Peeps ("WWP"). After
plaintiff allegedly made upsetting comments to WWP's group administrator, the
group administrator removed plaintiff from the group and posted her decision to
A-0962-17T3
2
do so on the WWP Facebook page. The group administrator expressed concern
in a subsequent post that plaintiff might be threatening her.
[Plaintiff] just threatened me… Not sure if he means a
lawsuit or bodily harm. He just sent me my
address…Not sure how he got it. Not sure how I should
proceed!!!
In response to the group administrator's post, defendant replied:
Everyone, the man has a bunch of personal issues that
he needs to work through. Trust me, as one of his
targets, I'm not sorry to see him leave the group, but
now we should just let him go. There's no reason for
us to continue to pile on.
Regarding the alleged threat to the group administrator, defendant continued:
Yes, please let the police know. Speaking from
experience, he's harmless but his harassment shouldn't
be tolerated. He has a history with the WW Police.
The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim
based on the fact that defendant's statement that plaintiff has a history with the
police is true. On this appeal, plaintiff contests the trial court's finding that
defendant's statement that plaintiff "has a history with the WW Police" is true,
mandating dismissal of the complaint.
We review an order granting a motion to dismiss de novo. Castello v.
Wohler, 446 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 228 N.J. 39 (2016). A
motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action must be
A-0962-17T3
3
denied if, giving plaintiff the benefit of all his allegations and all favorable
inferences, a cause of action has been made out. R. 4:6-2(e); see Burg v. State,
147 N.J. Super. 316, 319-20 (App. Div. 1977).
In this case, plaintiff admits that he was charged and indicted, but wrongly
believes that because the criminal matter was resolved through PTI and not by
a conviction, the statement that he has a history with the police is false. Clearly,
by plaintiff's own admission, and as the trial court properly found, defendant's
statement is true, and truth is an absolute defense to a defamation cause of
action. G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 293 (2011).1 For that reason, we affirm
the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.
Plaintiff's remaining arguments have insufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
1
Plaintiff's reliance on State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (2015) is unavailing. K.S.
dealt with standards for admission to PTI and did not address standards for
review of a defamation claim.
A-0962-17T3
4