SIMPSON JUAN v. ROBERT BRADLEY BLACKMAN

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2724-07T12724-07T1

SIMPSON JUAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT BRADLEY BLACKMAN,

Defendant-Respondent.

 

Submitted May 12, 2009 - Decided

 
Before Judges Winkelstein and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, L-6956-05.

Simpson Juan, appellant pro se.

Robert Bradley Blackman, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff sued defendant, his former attorney, for legal malpractice. Following mediation, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1000 in return for plaintiff's release of all claims against him. Plaintiff executed a release, and both parties executed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which was filed with the court. As a result, the case was dismissed in August 2006.

In November 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the stipulation of dismissal be vacated and the matter be reinstated for trial. The court denied that motion by order of January 4, 2008. On appeal, plaintiff raises the following issues:

POINT I THE TRIAL COURT ERR[ED] BY ORDERING MANDATORY ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO COURT RULE 4:21A-1.

POINT II LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS CLASSIFIED AS A PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE UNDER THE COURT RULE 4:21A-1.

POINT III ONLY VOLUNTARY ACTION FOR MANDATORY ARBITRATION IF PARTIES SPECIFICALLY REQUEST FOR MEDIATION BY STIPULATION FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT STIPULATE[].

POINT IV STIPULATION OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD, MISCONDUCT, MISREPRESENTATION, AND UNDUE MEANS CAN BE VACATED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY STATUTE 2A:24-8.

POINT V THE MOTION COURT ERR[ED] BY NOT GRANTING THE MOTION TO VACATE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO NEW JERSEY STATUTE 2A:24-8.

POINT VI THE MOTION COURT ABUSE[D ITS] DISCRETION IN NOT GRANTING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND INSTEAD MADE DETERMINATION OF FACT AND CREDIBILITY ISSUES WHICH ONLY A JURY CAN DETERMINE AS TO EVIDENCES PRESENTED.

POINT VII FRAUD ON THE COURT ARE ISSUES [SIC] OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

POINT VIII INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

Having considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record and controlling law, we conclude that his arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial judge on January 4, 2008.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2724-07T1

June 1, 2009