NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1321-15T2
KATHARINE LAI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NARDULLI, GIBBONS and IAC,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted March 22, 2017 – Decided April 7, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.
L-3126-15.
Katharine Lai, appellant pro se.
Thomas Paschos & Associates, PC, attorneys
for respondents (Thomas F. Gallagher, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Katharine Lai appeals from an October 1, 2015
order denying reconsideration of a prior order dismissing her
complaint against defendants Nardulli, Gibbons and IAC without
prejudice. Because a review of plaintiff's complaint and
subsequent filings make clear she has never alleged sufficient
facts to even suggest a cause of action against these
defendants, we affirm.
In a complaint filed in the Law Division, plaintiff alleged
she owns commercial property in Highland Park, which was damaged
as a result of freezing pipes in February 2015. She reported
her claim to her insurance carrier, Guard Company, on February
21, and received a certified letter on February 26,
acknowledging the claim and identifying the adjuster as
Capstone. She subsequently received a telephone call from
defendant Gibbons, an employee of IAC, who identified himself as
the adjuster assigned to her claim.
Plaintiff alleged she met Gibbons at the property on March
9, and that the first question he asked was her age. She
claimed he told her not to make any repairs until he could send
someone to estimate the damages to dental equipment in the
dentist's office where the pipes apparently burst. Plaintiff
claimed she received a letter from Gibbons on March 14
requesting additional information regarding the claim. Because
Gibbons "forgot" to provide her his email address, she was
forced to send leases and PSE&G bills to him by fax. Plaintiff
objected to Gibbons' failure to communicate by email as she knew
it was "the only way to moving all the procedures very quickly."
2 A-1321-15T2
Plaintiff alleged she received a letter from Gibbons on
April 11, with questions about the information previously
provided. Plaintiff alleged the letter "only Proved that he did
not know how to read [her] 2 letters, [her] PSEG bills and [her]
leases." She sent the exchange of correspondence to defendant
Nardulli, president of IAC, seeking assistance. Nardulli
responded by email, but ultimately "only repeated Mr. Gibbons'
funny questions. As if he also did not know how to read [her] 2
letters, [her] PSEG bills and [her] leases."
Plaintiff forwarded her exchange with Nardulli to Guard for
assistance. Her letter was apparently referred to Capstone,
because she claimed to have received a letter from a Mr. Carney
of Capstone on April 21. She forwarded all of her emails to
Carney, along with a
warning [to] all parties about if [she]
cannot received $21,008.40 property damages
& rental damages fees before May 10, 2015
. . . [t]hen [she would have] to sue Mr.
Nardulli, Mr. Gibbons & IAC for Fraud and
Discriminating me as a Disabled Old Chinese
Woman for 8 counts of $20,000,000 – damages.
No Matter they can sue Capstone & Guard Co.
as the third party plaintiffs or not?
Making good on her threat, plaintiff filed an eight-count
complaint in the Law Division on May 27 asserting the facts set
forth here, and claiming "[a]ll the Parties only can see me and
discriminating me as a Multiple Disabled, Old, Chinese Woman.
3 A-1321-15T2
That's why they all dared repeatedly refused to answer my
issues." The complaint sets forth claims alleging defendants
violated 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, the Law Against
Discrimination, the constitutions of the United States and the
State of New Jersey and asserts claims for fraud and negligence.
Plaintiff seeks "discrimination damages" of $20,000,000 plus
$21,008.40 in "property claim damages," along with punitive
damages, interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of answer
asserting the complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Plaintiff sent an email to the court
requesting that it deny defendants' "FAKE Motion on 08/07/2015
WITHOUT ANY ORAL argument." Plaintiff argued she set forth in
her complaint, above the jury demand, "very clearly [a]ll the
rules and laws" on which she relied. She maintained that
because defendants' motion relied only on her complaint, "[her]
best proving document," that either counsel for defendants
"FAILED to read [her] complaint very carefully . . . OR he is
intentionally to file a FAKE Motion to dismiss my L-3126-15
. . . UNLAWFULLY!"
The court granted defendants' motion dismissing the
complaint without prejudice on August 20, 2015. Plaintiff moved
for reconsideration advising that she had already warned
4 A-1321-15T2
defendants' counsel to "correct [the court's] 08/20/15 unlawful
order and [that] they should settle with [her] at once[,] [t]o
avoid [her] reports to ACJC and Attorney Ethical Committee of
Camden County." The court denied the motion, resulting in the
order from which plaintiff appeals. In a four-page written
statement of reasons, the court carefully explained the law and
the reasons why plaintiff's complaint failed to plead
"sufficient and essential facts" necessary to support the causes
of action plaintiff put forth and thus that reconsideration was
not appropriate.
Plaintiff appeals, claiming she used "the same laws same
counts" as in a case filed by the ACLU on behalf of three
African American minors against a municipality alleging race
discrimination, unlawful search and detention and negligence,
which was settled for over $59,000. Plaintiffs in that case
alleged police officers "searched and berated the boys while
they told the boys' three white friends to go home."
Unfortunately, the model plaintiff used for her complaint
involved a situation utterly unlike the one she complains of,
the failure of the insurance adjuster retained by her insurance
company to recommend payment of her property damage claim.
Moreover, plaintiff's complaint does not explain the connection
between her age, sex, disability status or national origin and
5 A-1321-15T2
the denial of her insurance claim, what duty defendants owed her
or why the adjuster's actions constituted fraud. As the Law
Division judge explained, plaintiff's membership in a protected
class is not enough to establish the causes of action she has
asserted against defendants.
Because the facts as alleged in plaintiff's complaint do
not state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 or § 1983,
N.J.S.A. 10:5-4, and she nowhere explains what duty defendants
owed her, how it was breached or what material misrepresentation
they made and how she relied upon it, we agree with the Law
Division that her complaint was properly dismissed without
prejudice. See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
116 N.J. 739, 753 (1989). We affirm substantially for the
reasons expressed in the court's written opinion of October 1,
2015.
Affirmed.
6 A-1321-15T2