NEU v. LOBB et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER Denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 10/5/2023. (amv,n.m.)

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RAYMOND B. NEU,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 1:15-cv-3847-NLH-SAK
OPINION and ORDER

v.
KENNETH LOBB, et al.
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
RAYMOND B. NEU
P.O. BOX 189
ABSECON, NJ 08201
Appearing Pro Se
HILLMAN, District Judge

WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, Raymond B. Neu (“Plaintiff”)
filed his complaint in this Court through his counsel Raheem S.
Watson, Esquire (“Watson”) (ECF 1); and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint (ECF 12); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this case against individual
Kenneth Lobb in addition to three corporate entities, Arthur
Solutions, Inc.; Hays House, Inc.; and Balboa Press, Inc.
(collectively, “Defendants”) (Id. at ¶¶ 2–3); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleged that Kenneth Lobb authored a
book titled “We Picked Up” with assistance from Arthur
1

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 183

Solutions, and that Balboa Press, which is a subsidiary of Hays
House, published the book (Id. at ¶ 9).; and
WHEREAS, the book was published on June 9, 2014 (Id. at ¶
10); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Lobb attended high school together
and in summer 1971 the two hitchhiked together from New Jersey
to California (Id. at ¶ 7); and
WHEREAS, Lobb’s book was based on Plaintiff and Lobb’s
experiences that summer and Plaintiff is depicted in the book as
a character named Otto (Id. at ¶¶ 8–9, 12); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleged that the book contains
defamatory statements about Plaintiff (Id. at ¶¶ 11–16); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleged that Lobb stated on his blog
that the book was a “true life rendition of the facts” and also
admits that he fabricated the truth to get it published (Id. at
¶¶ 18–19); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleged that Lobb used Plaintiff’s
picture and name to promote the book on Facebook and used his
name in a newspaper interview to promote the book; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff raised a claim of defamation against
Defendants (Id. at ¶¶ 20–21); and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, Defendants Arthur Solutions,
Inc.; Hays House, Inc.; and Balboa Press, Inc. filed a motion to

2

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 184

dismiss stating, among other arguments, that the complaint was
filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations (ECF 18); and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 2016, Defendant Lobb filed a
letter joining in the Motion to Dismiss (ECF 19); and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2016, applying New Jersey’s single
publication rule for determining when the statute of limitations
begins to run for a libel or slander action premised on a mass
publication, this Court determined that the one-year statute of
limitations had run (ECF 26 at 7);
WHEREAS, this Court explained that the book was published
on June 6, 2014 in hardback and a soft copy version was released
on June 9, 2014; however, the relevant date for the statute of
limitations is the June 6, 2014 date because these two releases
constituted a single publication based on the close proximity of
the releases and the fact that the content was identical (Id. at
5–7); and
WHEREAS, accordingly, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
complaint, which was filed on June 9, 2016, as untimely (ECF
27); and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter
addressed to the Court stating that he objected to paying his
counsel, Mr. Watson, attorney’s fees as his actions led to
Plaintiff’s case being unsuccessful (ECF 28); and

3

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 185

WHEREAS, Plaintiff stated in this letter that “Mr. Watson
missed a critical Statute of Limitations Deadline, despite the
fact that Plaintiff instructed him to file by June 5, 2016 (Id.
at 1 (emphasis in original)); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also stated that he had been advised
“that the remedy for Mr. Watson’s mistakes is a legal
malpractice suit,” which he stated he was exploring (Id. at 3);
and
WHEREAS, seven years later, on May 18, 2023, Plaintiff
filed a letter with this Court seeking to have this case
reopened (ECF 29); and
WHEREAS, Defendants did not file any response; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a reply on July 10, 2023
reiterating the content of his letter (ECF 31) and another
letter on August 1, 2023 seeking an update and providing proof
of service (ECF 32); and
WHEREAS, this Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); and
WHEREAS, Rule 60(b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment,
Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect;
4

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 186

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied,
released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; and
WHEREAS, a Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a
reasonable time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than
a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of
the proceeding.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); and

WHEREAS, Plaintiff stated that his reasons for reopening
the case include that (1) his counsel filed the case three days
past the statute of limitations despite him instructing his
counsel of the deadline two months prior; (2) his counsel failed
to state a claim; (3) his counsel was later disbarred in New
Jersey; (4) his counsel was later disbarred in Pennsylvania; (5)
his counsel failed to allege a claim for invasion of privacy;
and (6) his counsel failed to include in the complaint that the

5

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 187

book contained racial slurs or include a racial discrimination
cause of action (ECF 29 at 1); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff also asks for his case to be reopened
“for the sake of Justice” (Id.); and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s reasons for reopening this matter
focus on mistakes or inaction from his counsel, implicating Rule
60(b)(1) which allows a matter to be reopened when there is
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; and
WHEREAS, Rule 60(b)(1) requires such motion to be made “no
more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the
date of the proceeding”; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff had filed this Motion seven years after
his case was dismissed; and
WHEREAS, accordingly his application under Rule 60(b)(1) is
untimely; and
WHEREAS, even to the extent Plaintiff’s Motion seeks relief
under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits a case to be reopened for
“any other reason that justifies relief” and does not have the
same strict one year timeline for filing a Rule60(b) motion,
Plaintiff’s Motion filed seven years after his case was
dismissed is not filed “within a reasonable time” where
Plaintiff was aware of these issues seven years ago, as
evidenced by his May 11, 2016 letter to the Court complaining of
his attorney’s conduct; and
6

Case 1:15-cv-03847-NLH-SAK Document 33 Filed 10/05/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 188

THEREFORE, it is on this 5th day of October, 2023
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this matter for the
sole purpose of entering this Opinion and Order; and is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen his case (ECF 29)
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Opinion and
Order on Plaintiff by regular mail; and is further
ORDERED that this case shall be re-closed.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

7