CATHERINE E. CZYZ VS. BEST CHOICE MOVING, INC. (L-1157-17, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4480-17T1
CATHERINE E. CZYZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BEST CHOICE MOVING, INC.,
ROMAN SAKHOROV, RICK
CASTERLINE and SHEILA
CASTERLINE, d/b/a A VILLAGE
LOCK-UP STORAGE,
Defendants-Respondents.
______________________________
Submitted December 16, 2019 – Decided January 10, 2020
Before Judges Sumners and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Somerset County, Docket No. L-1157-17.
Catherine E. Czyz, appellant pro se.
Goldberg Segalla LLP, attorneys for respondents Rick
Casterline and Sheila Casterline (Elizabeth Anne
Chang, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from the Law Division's January 17, 2018 order
dismissing its complaint against Rick and Sheila Casterline, d/b/a A Village
Lock-Up Storage (Casterlines), with prejudice and a February 16, 2018 order
denying reconsideration. Plaintiff also appeals an April 18, 2018 default
judgment against defendants Best Choice Moving, Inc. (Best Choice) and
Roman Sakhorov (Sakhorov). We vacate the January 17, 2018 and February 16,
2018 orders and remand for the court to issue findings of fact and conclusions
of law in accordance with Rule 1:7-4. We affirm the April 18, 2018 order.
This appeal has its genesis in a contract plaintiff entered into with Best
Choice to transport her belongings from Basking Ridge to her new residence in
Ohio. According to plaintiff, when Best Choice arrived at her home, it
demanded to be compensated contrary to the parties' agreement. Best Choice
eventually transported a portion of plaintiff's personal items but when its driver,
defendant Roman Sakhorov, arrived in Ohio a week later, plaintiff claims he
demanded an additional $600 to unload the truck. Because Sakhorov refused to
accept a check, and plaintiff was unable to secure $600 in cash on a weekend,
Sakhorov allegedly brought plaintiff's belongings to the Casterlines' facility in
Ohio where they were placed in storage.
A-4480-17T1
2
Plaintiff brought an action in Ohio state court against defendants.
According to the Casterlines, after extensive litigation in the Ohio trial and
appellate courts, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed on the merits. Three
months later, however, on September 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint for
possession, replevin, breach of contract, and conversion of property in the
Superior Court of New Jersey in Somerset County against defendants.
Plaintiff requested an entry of default against each defendant and on
January 8, 2018, the Clerk entered default as to Best Choice and Sakhorov. After
a proof hearing, the court issued a default judgment on April 18, 2018 against
Best Choice and Sakharov for $168,774.11, plus pre-judgment interest. 1
In lieu of an answer, the Casterlines filed a motion to dismiss in which
they maintained that: 1) plaintiff failed to serve them with process properly; 2)
New Jersey courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them; 3) plaintiff's claims
were barred by res judicata; and 4) plaintiff's complaint otherwise failed to state
a claim. Plaintiff opposed the motion and asserted that "[t]he causes of action
are properly [pled] in the [c]omplaint," and she "properly filed this action in the
proper venue."
1
Plaintiff's request for an entry of default against the Casterlines was denied.
A-4480-17T1
3
At the January 17, 2018 oral argument, plaintiff argued that New Jersey
was an appropriate forum because the contract with Best Choice was entered
into in, and her belongings were taken from, New Jersey. She added that she
raised new claims in the New Jersey action, and that the Ohio litigation was
dismissed without prejudice and had no "bearing on the New Jersey case." At
the conclusion of oral arguments, the court stated it would "go[] back and review
[its] notes . . . [and] issue a written opinion within the next couple of days." On
the same day, however, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's claims
against the Casterlines with prejudice. That order was unaccompanied by an
oral or written statement of reasons.
Thereafter, on January 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration. 2 After considering the parties' oral arguments, the court denied
the motion and stated that plaintiff's application was procedurally defective
because "[she] filed a motion for leave to appeal of the [January 17, 2018]
decision; and on the merits, . . . [because plaintiff] brought . . . no additional
facts . . . or . . . any law to light that [it] did not consider."
2
While the motion for reconsideration was pending, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to appeal the January 17, 2018 order. We dismissed plaintiff's
interlocutory appeal on November 14, 2018 due to her failure to file a timely
conforming brief. On May 11, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended notice of appeal.
A-4480-17T1
4
On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the court committed error by not entering
a default judgment against the Casterlines and holding all defendants jointly and
severally liable. Plaintiff further argues that the court erred by not finding venue
and personal jurisdiction over the Casterlines in Somerset County. Additionally,
plaintiff contends that the court committed error by finding plaintiff's claims
were barred by res judicata, and by treating the Casterlines' motion to dismiss
as a motion for summary judgment. Finally, plaintiff asserts that the court erred
in dismissing the case for failure to state a claim, and in failing to award
sanctions or strike the motion to dismiss, as the Casterlines' counsel presented
false information and perpetrated a fraud.
Despite stating that it intended to "issue a written opinion within the next
couple of days," the court resolved the Casterlines' motion to dismiss by way of
the January 17, 2018 order. As noted, that order was not accompanied by an
oral or written statement of reasons as required by Rule 1:7-4.
As we have previously stated, a reviewing court cannot properly function
or proceed without some understanding of why a judge has rendered a particular
ruling. The Supreme Court in Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980)
(quoting Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adjustment, Englewood, 141 N.J. Super.
1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)), stated that the absence of an adequate expression of a
A-4480-17T1
5
trial judge's rationale "constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and
the appellate court." We have repeated this time and again. See, e.g., Gnall v.
Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015); Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 454 N.J.
Super. 298, 301-02 (App. Div. 2018); State v. Lawrence, 445 N.J. Super. 270,
276-77 (App. Div. 2016); Raspantini v. Arocho, 364 N.J. Super. 528, 533 (App.
Div. 2003); In re Farnkopf, 363 N.J. Super. 382, 390 (App. Div. 2003); T.M. v.
J.C., 348 N.J. Super. 101, 106-07 (App. Div. 2002).
We acknowledge the Casterlines' arguments that there are significant
concerns regarding plaintiff's ability to prosecute this action in New Jersey
based on jurisdictional grounds and the preclusive effect of the Ohio judgment.
Plaintiff, however, maintains that New Jersey is a proper forum, she effectuated
service correctly, and the Ohio litigation was dismissed without prejudice and
is not barred by res judicata or related preclusive doctrines.
On the current record, we decline to guess what the court might have been
thinking when it issued its January 17, 2018 order. Nor can we discern from the
court's February 16, 2018 oral decision and order the bases for its determination
to grant defendants' motion to dismiss. As Judge Fuentes said recently in Estate
of Doerfler, "our function as an appellate court is to review the decision of the
trial court, not to decide the motion tabula rasa." 454 N.J. Super. at 302.
A-4480-17T1
6
Finally, with respect to the April 18, 2018 default judgment, plaintiff
maintains that the court "erred by not awarding [p]laintiff a [j]udgment against
all [d]efendants, jointly and severally[,] [as] all of the [d]efendants were in
default." She further claims that the court erred because it did not "assess the
defendants all of the [p]laintiff's costs . . . ." We have considered plaintiff's
arguments and consider them without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E). The court's detailed written opinion
appended to its April 18, 2018 order outlines the recoverable damages and costs
against Best Choice and Sakhorov and plaintiff has not cited any Rule or
precedential authority supporting her conclusory claims that she is entitled to
additional costs or damages. Further, the record does not support plaintiff 's
claims that the court should have issued a default judgment against the
Casterlines.
As to the remanded proceedings, the parties shall provide the trial court
with courtesy copies of their appellate briefs and appendices within ten days of
this opinion and the court shall issue an appropriate amended order and findings
of fact and conclusions of law thirty days thereafter. To the extent any party
seeks further appellate review, they may file a supplemental brief with the
A-4480-17T1
7
Appellate Division Clerk within thirty days after receiving the court's amended
order and Rule 1:7-4 findings.
In light of our decision to remand the matter, we have not addressed the
merits of the issues raised on appeal and nothing in our opinion should be
construed as an expression of our views regarding the substantive claims and
defenses raised by the parties.
Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. We retain jurisdiction.
A-4480-17T1
8