PAUL LEODORI v. CIGNA CORPORATION, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6711-03T16711-03T1

PAUL LEODORI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA INSURANCE

COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA, WILSON TAYLOR,

THOMAS WAGNER, GERALD ISOM, JAMES

ENGEL, JOHN MURPHY, DAVID GOLD,

BEVERLY SHERBONDY, STEPHANIE

MIDDLETON, ANTHONY SMITH, ALFRED

DECRANE, JAMES J. RITCHIE, ROBERT

CAMPBELL,

Defendants-Respondents.

 

PAUL LEODORI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA INSURANCE

COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF

NORTH AMERICA, SCHNADER HARRISON

SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, ARLIN ADAMS,

LISA DETWILER, WILSON TAYLOR,

THOMAS WAGNER, GERALD ISOM, JAMES

ENGEL, JOHN MURPHY, DAVID GOLD,

BEVERLY SHERBONDY, STEPHANIE

MIDDLETON, ANTHONY SMITH, JAMES

J. RITCHIE, ROBERT H. CAMPBELL,

DENNIS KANE, ALFRED DECRANE, PETER

LARSON, JOSEPH NEUBAUER, HAROLD

WAGNER, CAROL COX WAIT,

Defendants-Respondents.

 

 

Argued March 1, 2006 - Decided March 16, 2006

Before Judges Conley, Weissbard and Winkelstein.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, L-1147-00 and L-3776-00.

Paul Leodori, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Michael K. Furey argued the cause for respondents (Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, attorneys for respondents CIGNA Corporation, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Arlin Adams, Lisa Detwiler, Wilson Taylor, Thomas Wagner, Gerald Isom, John Murphy, Beverly Sherbondy, Stephanie Middleton, Anthony Smith, James J. Ritchie, Robert Campbell, Dennis Kane, Alfred DeCrane, Peter Larson, Joseph Neubauer, Harold Wagner and Carol Cox Wait); and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, attorneys respondents for CIGNA Insurance Company, Insurance Company of North America, David Gold and James Engel (Mr. Furey and Edward T. Ellis, of counsel; Mr. Furey, Brett M. Reina, Mr. Ellis and Janice G. Dubler, on the joint brief).

PER CURIAM

This appeal is yet another round in plaintiff's continuing dispute with defendants. We do not recount its history as we previously did that in our prior opinion, Leodori v. CIGNA, Corp., Nos. A-5369-99T3, A-1996-00T3 (App. Div. Dec. 27, 2001), as did the Supreme Court in its affirming opinion, 175 N.J. 293, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 938, 124 S. Ct. 74, 157 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2003). The present appeal arises from a June 25, 2004, order enforcing the parties' agreement to arbitrate their dispute. Plaintiff also seeks to appeal a May 28, 2004, order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and December 19, 2003, orders denying his motion to amend the complaint to add defendant CIGNA's counsel and to disqualify them. All of those prior orders are interlocutory. The most recent order remitting the dispute to an arbitrator does not dismiss the complaint and is not a final judgment.

 
We recognize that during argument on the motion, after the judge had ruled, the judge indicated that she thought she had no continuing jurisdiction as the agreement was for binding arbitration. It was not. It specifically recognizes the parties' right to appeal the arbitrator's decision. We see no significant public issues involved that would require us to nunc pro tunc grant leave to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.

Specifically, the body of the order is as follows:

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court upon the application of Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, attorneys for defendants CIGNA Corporation, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Arlin Adams, Lisa Detwiler, Wilson Taylor, Thomas Wagner, Gerald Isom, John Murphy, Beverly Sherbondy, Stephanie Middleton, Anthony Smith, James J. Ritchie, Robert H. Campbell, Dennis Kane, Alfred DeCrane, Peter Larson, Joseph Neubauer, Harold Wagner, and Carol Cox Waite (the "CIGNA-related defendants"), on their motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties, and the Court having considered the submissions of the parties, and the argument of counsel, and for good cause shown:

IT IS on this 25th day of June, 2004,

ORDERED that the parties should proceed to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the "Agreement to Proceed to Arbitration." attached to this Order as Exhibit A; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to the Agreement to Proceed to Arbitration, the parties shall execute and file the Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice, attached to this Order as Exhibit B; and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties within seven days of this Order.

Not only does the order not dismiss the complaint, but the proposed language directing the filing of a stipulation of dismissal was expressly stricken by the judge.

In this respect, paragraph 4a of the agreement specifically states that "[n]o payment shall be payable . . . until after the Arbitrator provides to the parties his/her written decision or until after a decision on any appeal of the Arbitrator's decision if an appeal is taken by one of the parties, whichever is later."

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-6711-03T1

March 16, 2006