YONG CHUL SON v. THOMAS G. LYNCH, ESQ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5087-13T3

YONG CHUL SON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS G. LYNCH, ESQ.,

Defendant-Respondent.

______________________________

November 20, 2015

Submitted October 7, 2015 - Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Kennedy.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-4607-10.

Yong Chul Son, appellant pro se.

Cillick & Smith, attorneys for respondent (Edward W. Cillick, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Yong Chul Son appeals from the May 23, 2014 order denying his unopposed motion to "describe the discovery of Court's Hearing Order for R. 1:6-2(a)."1 We dismiss the appeal as it is not properly presented.

As best we can determine from the papers filed, the history of the parties' relationship began when defendant Thomas G. Lynch, Esq. represented plaintiff in a 2001 civil action against Pum Yang Express USA, Inc. concerning a 1996 shipping contract. The 2001 civil action was subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff did not pay defendant for his representation, which was undertaken on a contingency basis.

Thereafter, in April 2010, plaintiff filed a malpractice action against defendant, which was subsequently dismissed, reinstated, and ultimately dismissed again on March 23, 2012 for lack of prosecution. Numerous subsequent motions were filed by plaintiff, all of which were denied. In the judge's July 27, 2012 order, he stated that

[a]lthough Plaintiff has filed three motions since his case was dismissed, none of these motions were to vacate the dismissal despite the Court informing Plaintiff that his case had been dismissed by way of telephonic conversation, in-person conversation, and the Court's April 27, 2012 and June 29, 2012 Orders. This motion, as well as Plaintiff's prior two motions, fails to state the grounds upon which it is made and fails to state the nature of the relief sought as required by R. 1:6-2(a).

In his August 10, 2012 order, the judge noted that plaintiff's motion was denied "for the reasons stated in the . . . July 27, 2012 order." The same reason was also given for the July 12, 2013 and August 23, 2013 denials of plaintiff's motions to enter default judgment against defendant. On January 27, 2014, a different judge denied plaintiff's motion to "describe the discovery of Court's Hearing Order for R. 1:6-2(a)." Interpreting this January motion as a motion for reconsideration, the judge explained the legal standard for reconsideration and ruled that this motion fell short of that standard. When subsequently denying the current repetitive motion, the motion judge suggested that "plaintiff may seek appellate review."

Although litigants who represent themselves must follow the Rules of Court, plaintiff has not done so regarding point headings or other appellate brief requirements. See R. 2:6-2 (providing appellate brief requirements); see also Tuckey v. Harleysville Ins. Co, 236 N.J. Super. 221, 224 (App. Div. 1989) ("Litigants are free to represent themselves if they so choose, but in exercising that choice they must understand that they are required to follow accepted rules of procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court to guarantee an orderly process."). We cannot determine the basis of plaintiff's appeal. Although he appears to complain at least in part that he was not afforded oral argument by the motion judge, we cannot determine if he requested oral argument in his unopposed motion papers. See R. 1:6-2(d) ("[N]o motion shall be listed for oral argument unless a party requests oral argument . . . .") (emphasis added). As plaintiff has not sufficiently articulated the grounds for his appeal, we are unable to rule on the merits and are constrained to dismiss the appeal. R. 2:9-9 (providing that failure to properly prosecute an appeal shall be grounds for "dismissal of the appeal").

Dismissed.

1 After our remand seeking clarification, the motion judge issued a letter indicating the precise wording of the relief requested in the motion.