PETER et al v. TAVISTOCK AT MAYS LANDING HOA et al

Filing 27

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER granting Defendant's 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 and 19 Motions to dismiss. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 10/24/2024. (kht)

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ELIZABETH PETER, et al., Plaintiff, V. AT MAYS LANDING TAVISTOCK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; et al., Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-758-MAS-TJB AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants. SHIPP, District Judge This matter comes before the Court upon six different motions to dismiss filed by fifteen different defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). 1 All of the Defendants' motions seek to dismiss Plaintiffs Elizabeth Peter ("E. Peter") and Anina Peter's Complaint in its entirety as to each individual Defendant (ECF No. 1). (See ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.) Plaintiffs opposed the motions to dismiss collectively (ECF No. 20), and the Ansell Defendants and State Judicial Defendants opposed (ECF Nos. 21, 24). After considering the parties' submissions, the 1 All Defendants so far served in this matter move to dismiss. These Defendants include (1) Defendants Eric Mann, Esq., Maxwell L. Billek, Esq., Michael P. Chipko, Esq., and Wilson Elser Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP (collectively, the "Wilson Elser Defendants") (ECF No. 13); (2) Dennis Bartal and Christopher Stanchina, Esq. (ECF No. 14); (3) the New Jersey Bar Association ("NJBA") (ECF No. 15); (4) Tavistock at Mays Landing Homeowners Association, Inc. (the "Association"), Karen Bartal, and Jennifer M. Kurtz, Esq. (collectively, the "Association Defendants") (ECF No. 16); (5) Nicole D. Miller, Esq. and Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. (collectively, the "Ansell Defendants") (ECF No. 17); and (6) the State ofNew Jersey (the "State"), the Honorable Dean R. Marcolongo, J.S.C., and the Honorable Sarah B. Johnson, J.S.C. (the "State Judicial Defendants") (ECF No. 19). future filings." Peter v. New Jersey, No. 23-2477, 2024 WL 303172, at *5 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2024). Because the Court was clear with E. Peter that continued frivolous filing would not be tolerated, an amendment here would be futile, and the Court will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that court has discretion to dismiss claims with prejudice when finding amendment would be futile). This Memorandum Order constitutes a final warning that any future frivolous filings related to the same transaction and occurrence set forth in Plaintiffs' current Complaint may lead to sanctions. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Order, IT IS on this ;; {'-'aay of October 2024, ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19) are GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk's Office is directed to close this case. MicHAEL A.SIPP � UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6

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?