KAMDEM-OUAFFO v. CAMPBELL'S SOUP COMPANY et al
Filing
223
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/27/2022. (mag)
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 6429
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO d/b/a
KAMDEM GROUP,
Plaintiff,
No. 1:22-cv-03285-NLH-SAK
OPINION
v.
AMBER M. SPATARO, et al.,
Defendants.
RICKY KAMDEM-OUAFFO
Plaintiff,
No. 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK
v.
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.
HILLMAN, District Judge
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Ricky KamdemOuaffo’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Re-argument, Clarification, or
Reconsideration, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 79), and Motions to
Disqualify, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 85; 1:18-cv-00298, ECF 220).
For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiff’s motions will be
denied.
I.
Background
This matter has a long and winding history aided by
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 6430
Plaintiff’s filing of multiple actions regarding the same
general events.
A full recitation is unnecessary here.
Sufficient for present purposes, Plaintiff filed an action under
Docket No. 1:17-cv-07506 alleging, among other claims,
violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”)
and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act
(“CEPA”).
(1:17-cv-07506, ECF 13).
The basic allegations
supporting the complaint were the termination of Plaintiff’s
brief professional-services relationship with Campbell Soup
Company (“Campbell’s”) reportedly caused by financial hardships,
(id. at ¶¶ 12, 42), but which Plaintiff alleged was due to
discovery of his prior lawsuits against employers, (id. at ¶¶
17, 22, 32).
process.
Plaintiff claimed that he was also defamed in the
(Id. at ¶¶ 24-28, 35-38, 46-49).
Plaintiff filed additional actions under Docket Nos. 1:18cv-00298 and 1:18-cv-13119 alleging CEPA, LAD, and other claims
also based on the termination of his tenure with Campbell’s.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 66; 1:18-cv-13119, ECF 1).
The three
dockets were ultimately consolidated under Docket No. 1:18-cv00298.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 104; ECF 201).
Plaintiff participated in an initial conference associated
with Docket No. 1:17-cv-07506 on January 17, 2018, (1:17-cv07506, ECF 66), and on July 26, 2018 filed an appeal challenging
the Court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction,
2
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 6431
consolidation of actions, and other orders, (1:17-cv-07506, ECF
85).
On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff – in a brief in support
of a motion to strike – indicated that he would “not conduct any
discovery credited as toward separate case # 18-cv-00298” and
that he would “not appear in person for any hearing in separate
case # 1:18-cv-00298” pending his appeal.
127-1 at 7).
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF
Then Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider thereafter
cancelled an initial scheduling conference calendared under
Docket No. 1:18-cv-00298.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 130).
Defendant Task Management Inc. (“Task”) filed a renewed
motion for summary judgment, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 183), on April
8, 2020 and later submitted a reply brief and supplemental
statement of material and undisputed facts asserting that
“Plaintiff refused to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference or
create a joint discovery plan.
The Initial Scheduling
Conference in this case was cancelled because Plaintiff refused
to participate,” (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 190; ECF 190-1 at ¶ 18).
In the Court’s October 20, 2020 opinion and order granting
Task’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice
claims previously dismissed without prejudice, (1:18-cv-00298,
ECF 200; ECF 201), the Court – citing Judge Schneider’s
cancelation of the initial scheduling conference at Plaintiff’s
request – found that Plaintiff had failed to participate in a
Rule 26(f) conference, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 200 at 7, 24, 26).
3
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 6432
Plaintiff appealed, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 202), and the Third
Circuit affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment and
agreed “that the lack of disclosure under Rule 26 was due to
[Plaintiff’s] refusal to participate in the conference,” KamdemOuaffo v. Campbell Soup Co., Nos. 20-3172 & 20-3173, 2021 WL
5600508, at *2-3 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) (per curiam).
Plaintiff moved to vacate the summary judgment opinion and
order on April 20, 2022, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 206), and filed a
separate action under Docket No. 1:22-cv-03285 alleging
violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct and
fraud against the courts allegedly perpetrated by Defendants and
opposing counsel in his previous cases, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 1;
ECF 16).
The Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss the
2022 action, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 78), and denied Plaintiff’s
motion to vacate the 2018 matter, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 217). 1
The Court’s November 9, 2022 opinion and order denying
Plaintiff’s motion to vacate also provided Plaintiff fifteen
days to show cause why a filing injunction should not be entered
against him, citing Plaintiff’s voluminous filings over multiple
dockets, failure to abide by orders and procedural rules, and
attempts to re-litigate decided matters. (1:18-cv-00298, ECF
217). On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff sought a ninety-day
extension to respond,(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 218-1 at 5), to which
the Court provided fourteen days, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 219).
Plaintiff filed one of the pending Motions to Disqualify under
that docket on December 8, 2022, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 220), but
did not otherwise respond to the order to show cause in the time
allotted. On December 13, 2022, the Court entered an order
“prohibit[ing Plaintiff] from making any future filings or
instituting any future actions with respect to the same or
similar parties or the same or similar matters as those
4
1
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 6433
Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Re-argument,
Clarification, or Reconsideration on November 15, 2022, (1:22cv-03285, ECF 79), and later amended his supporting brief,
(1:22-cv-03285, ECF 80).
On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed
matching Motions to Disqualify under both active dockets.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 220; 1:22-cv-03285, ECF 85).
II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
The Court will interpret Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument, Clarification, or Reconsideration as a motion for
reconsideration.
Within this District, motions for
reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).
Solid
Rock Baptist Church v. Murphy, 555 F. Supp. 3d 53, 59 (D.N.J.
Aug. 16, 2021). 2
The Rule provides that motions for
reconsideration are to be served and filed within fourteen days
of the order or judgment in question and accompanied by “[a]
brief setting forth concisely the matter or controlling
decisions which the party believes the Judge has overlooked.”
addressed under Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-07506, 1:18-cv-00298, 1:18cv-13119, and 1:22-cv-03285 without express written permission
of the Court.” (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 221 at 4-5).
Motions for reconsideration are not expressly referenced in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are generally interpreted
as motions to alter or amend judgments pursuant to Rule 59(e) or
motions for relief from judgments or orders pursuant to Rule
60(b). See Rich v. State, 294 F. Supp. 3d 266, 277 (D.N.J. Feb.
6, 2018) (citing United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F.
Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. Dec. 2, 1999)).
5
2
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 6434
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
Motions for reconsideration are to be
granted only upon a showing that (1) there has been an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) new evidence has
become available that was unavailable when the Court entered the
order, or (3) reconsideration “is necessary to correct a clear
error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice.”
Solid Rock
Baptist Church, 555 F. Supp. 3d at 59-60 (citing Max's Seafood
Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
“[A] motion for reconsideration is an ‘extremely limited
procedural vehicle,’”
Champion Lab’ys, Inc. v. Metex Corp., 677
F. Supp. 2d 748, 750 (D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2010) (quoting Resorts
Int'l v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 830 F. Supp. 826, 831
(D.N.J. Sept. 1, 1992)), and is only to be granted when the
court’s prior decision overlooked a fact or legal issue that may
impact how the matter is resolved, Andreyko v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2014).
Mere disagreement with a court’s decision will not suffice and
the proffered piece of law or fact must be dispositive to the
matter.
See Rich, 294 F. Supp. 3d at 272-73.
To prevail under
the “clear error” standard, “the movant must show that
‘dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law
were brought to the court's attention but not considered.’”
Mitchell v. Twp. of Willingboro Mun. Gov’t, 913 F. Supp. 2d 62,
77-78 (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2012) (quoting P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt.
6
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 6435
LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349, 353 (D.N.J. Aug. 24,
2001)).
Here, Plaintiff appears to continue to dispute entry of
summary judgment against him under Docket No. 1:18-cv-00298 and
the conclusion that he failed to participate in conferences.
(1:22-cv-03285, ECF 80 at 3-4).
Plaintiff alleges that he was
unable to respond to a statement of material and undisputed
facts filed in the 1:18-cv-00298 matter and that he was placed
under the impression by an order entered by Judge Schneider that
discovery would be stayed and he was not given notice to respond
to the statement of material and undisputed facts.
5).
(Id. at 4-
The filing of a statement of material and undisputed facts
“as last paper . . .
was a deliberate scheme of fraud by
malice” that the undersigned participated in, according to
Plaintiff, and the opinion and order under Docket No. 1:18-cv00298 must be considered void as it violated Plaintiff’s Due
Process rights.
(Id. at 5-6)
Finally moving on to the matter docketed under No. 1:22-cv03285, Plaintiff contends that the Court’s November 8, 2022
opinion and order must be vacated as void under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) because the filing of a statement of
material and undisputed facts without an opportunity for
Plaintiff to respond violated Plaintiff’s Equal Protection
rights.
(Id. at 7-9).
7
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 6436
The Court first notes that, though Plaintiff has filed his
motion under Docket No. 1:22-cv-03285, the relief sought refers
back to the Court’s opinion and order filed on October 20, 2020
under Docket No. 1:18-cv-00298.
The Court’s two-year-old
decision was affirmed by the Third Circuit, see Kamdem-Ouaffo,
2021 WL 5600508, at *3, and though timely for the purposes of
the opinion and order filed under Docket No. 1:22-cv-03285,
Plaintiff’s motion falls well outside the fourteen-day window
provided by Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) for the matter it actually
seeks to challenge.
Furthermore, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s arguments are
untethered to the law and facts applicable to his cases.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s position, which focuses on Local Civil
Rule 7.1(h) pertaining to cross-motions, our Local Civil Rules
provide an opponent of a summary judgment motion with an
opportunity to dispute the movant’s statement of material facts.
See L. Civ. R. 56.1(a).
An opponent is to provide, with their
opposition papers, a responsive statement of material facts
indicating agreement or disagreement with each paragraph of the
movant’s statement and may even submit their own supplemental
statement.
See id.; see also V.C. by Costello v. Target Corp.,
454 F. Supp. 3d 415, 419 n.3 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2020) (analyzing
Local Civil Rule 56.1).
The Court interprets Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
8
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 6437
as referring to the statement of material and undisputed facts
filed with Task’s original motion for summary judgment on
January 10, 2019 and then supplemented on May 11, 2020 after the
motion was renewed.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 151-2; ECF 190-1).
This is because the supplement makes the assertion that
Plaintiff failed to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference,
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 190-1 at ¶ 18), which Plaintiff continues to
dispute.
The record shows that Plaintiff responded to these
statements, (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 193-1), offered his own (1:18cv-00298, ECF 193-2), and amended both (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 1951; ECF 195-2).
Therefore, not only did Plaintiff have the
opportunity to challenge Task’s statement of material and
undisputed facts and supplement, but he in fact did so. 3
Nowhere in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or
amended supporting brief does he provide an intervening change
in law or new evidence.
While the Court may interpret Plaintiff
as claiming that reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear
error of fact, the record reflects facts contrary to Plaintiff’s
position and, while Plaintiff may disagree with the Court’s twoyear-old decision and the Third Circuit’s subsequent affirmance,
a party’s mere disagreement with a decision does not support
For reasons expressed infra, the Court further finds that
Plaintiff mischaracterizes Judge Schneider’s February 1, 2019
order. (1:18-cv-00298, ECF 158).
9
3
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 6438
reconsideration.
See Rich, 294 F. Supp. 3d at 273.
Evaluation under Rule 60, as cited in Plaintiff’s briefing,
does not produce a different result.
Relief from a final
judgment or order may be provided when the judgment is void,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), or when there has been a fraud on the
court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).
A judgment is void when it “is
premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on
a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or
the opportunity to be heard,” Johnson v. Rardin, 700 Fed. Appx.
170, 172 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting U.S. Aid Funds, Inc. v.
Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010)).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has been heard.
Fraud
against a court requires (1) an intentional fraud, (2) by an
officer of the court, (3) directed toward to court, (4) that
results in actual deception, Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d
384, 386 (3d Cir. 2005), and “must be supported by clear,
unequivocal and convincing evidence,” id. at 387 (quoting In re
Coordinated Pretrial Proc. in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 538
F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976)).
Notably, alleged inaccuracies
in statements of material facts are not themselves sufficient to
demonstrate a fraud on a court.
See Wei v. Pennsylvania, No.
21-2059, 2021 WL 4544139, at *2 (3d Cir. Oct. 5, 2021).
Therefore, the Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to
meet his burden under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) and will deny his
10
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 6439
Motion for Reconsideration.
III. Motions to Disqualify
Judges are to disqualify themselves “in any proceeding in
which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
U.S.C. § 455(a).
28
Specific circumstances warranting recusal
include instances in which the judge has a personal bias or
prejudice toward a party, in some way participated in the matter
in controversy, or when they, a spouse, or a minor child in
their household holds a financial interest in the matter in
controversy.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(b)(1)-(4).
Judges have
considerable discretion in disqualifying themselves and the
standard is objective: whether “a reasonable person knowing all
the circumstances would question the judge's impartiality.”
Sessoms v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., 739 Fed. Appx. 84, 90 (3d Cir.
2018) (citing Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360
F.3d 155, 166 (3d Cir. 2004)).
The appearance of potential
bias, not actual bias, is the focus of judicial
disqualification.
See In re Apollo, 535 Fed. Appx. 169, 174 (3d
Cir. 2013).
As with Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, the twin
Motions to Disqualify seek to rehash years-old decisions
pertaining to Plaintiff’s participation or failure to
participate in conferences under Docket No. 1:18-cv-00298.
particular, Plaintiff latches on to Task’s statement in an
11
In
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 6440
opposition to Plaintiff’s renewed motion for sanctions that
“Plaintiff should be wary of attacking the propriety of the
actions of opposing counsel, when he has not adhered to the very
rules he complains have been violated,” citing Judge Schneider’s
text order cancelling a conference at Plaintiff’s request.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 196 at 11; ECF 220-1; 1:22-cv-03285, ECF 851).
Plaintiff also alleges that Judge Schneider used
Plaintiff’s same reasoning to exempt Task from discovery,
indicating that Plaintiff’s reason for not participating was
“legally cognizable and sound.”
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 220-1 at 8-
10; 1:22-cv-03285, ECF 85-1 at 8-10).
To begin, the Court has reviewed the relevant order by
Judge Schneider and concludes that Plaintiff misrepresents its
reasoning.
Rather than adopting or approving of Plaintiff’s
arguments, Judge Schneider concluded that a protective order
precluding Plaintiff from filing discovery requests was
warranted “due to [Plaintiff’s] repeated refusal to participate
in a Rule 26(f) conference or to otherwise meet and confer,”
Plaintiff’s continued filing of requests under a closed docket,
and the general duplicative and cumulative nature of his
discovery requests.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 158 at 7-8).
Next, the Court notes that, though 28 U.S.C. § 455 does not
articulate a timeliness requirement, the timeliness of a
disqualification motion is a factor to be considered.
12
See In re
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 6441
Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 312 (3d Cir. 2004).
To the
extent that Plaintiff contends that the undersigned should have
recused himself, Plaintiff’s arguments center on events that
took place more than two years ago.
See Stone Hedge Props. v.
Phoenix Cap. Corp., 371 Fed. Appx. 138, 141 (3d Cir. 2003)
(affirming denial of a motion for vacatur for failure to recuse
when copies of the relevant financial disclosures were received
nearly three years before the vacatur motion).
Though not dispositive of Plaintiff’s Motions to
Disqualify, the Court finds that this significant delay supports
its overall conclusion that Plaintiff’s motions are being used
as a vehicle to relitigate long-settled matters and simply
attack the decisionmaker for decisions he disagrees with.
Plaintiff’s disagreements entitle him to an appeal, which he
took, but they are not a basis for disqualification or recusal.
On the merits, Plaintiff attempts to use Task’s “wary of
attacking the propriety of the actions of opposing counsel” as a
means of evidencing some sort of conspiracy between the Court
and Task’s counsel.
(1:18-cv-00298, ECF 220-1 at 11-12; 1:22-
cv-03285, ECF 85-1 at 11-12).
Subsequent rulings against
Plaintiff have been interpreted as the Court following Task’s
counsel’s “command[s]” and “improperly granting favors.”
(Id.)
Plaintiff’s arguments seem to equate adverse rulings with bias,
but “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid
13
Case 1:18-cv-00298-NLH-SAK Document 223 Filed 12/27/22 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 6442
basis for a bias or partiality motion.”
In re James, 826 Fed.
Appx. 254, 256 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).
More to the point,
the undersigned does not harbor any biases or prejudices toward
Plaintiff or the merits of his claims, has not participated in
this case outside his role as a judge, and has no financial
interest in this matter.
See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b).
To the contrary, the Court has endeavored to provide
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, with benefits of the doubt –
offering leniency for failure to comply with orders and
procedural rules and interpreting unsupported or inaccurate
legal arguments in the manner believed to be intended.
practice has continued through the pending motions.
That
Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate a legitimate reason necessitating
disqualification, and because the Court itself finds none,
Plaintiff’s Motions for Disqualification will be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument, Clarification, or Reconsideration, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF
79), and Motions to Disqualify, (1:22-cv-03285, ECF 85; 1:18-cv00298, ECF 220), will be denied.
An Order consistent with this
Opinion will be entered.
Date: December 27, 2022
At Camden, New Jersey
14
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?