ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI et al. v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1151-04T21151-04T2

ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI and

KAZUYO UEDA SAKHRANI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA;

THOMAS O'CONNOR; CROSSTATE

TITLE AGENCY, INC.; DANIEL

GRENNAN; MARIA GARGANO; MAJESTIC

HOME MORTGAGE, L.L.C.; STEVE

BOTULINSKI; JOHN TARAPATA;

LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP.,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted October 26, 2005 - Decided February 17, 2006

Before Judges Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County,

Docket No. L-5734-04.

Atoo Heera Sakhrani and Kazuyo Ueda

Sakhrani, appellants pro se.

Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, attorneys

for respondents First National Bank

of Arizona and Thomas O'Connor (Tammy

Fahmi, of counsel; Penelope E. Codrington,

on the brief).

Connell Foley, attorneys for respondents

Crosstate Title Agency, Inc., Daniel

Grennan and Maria Gargano (Stephen V.

Falanga, of counsel; Matthew I. Gennaro,

on the brief).

Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney,

attorneys for respondents Majestic Home

Mortgage, Steve Botulinski and John

Tarapata (Michael A. Kosar, on the brief).

McCarter & English, attorneys for

respondent Lawyers Title Insurance

Corporation (David R. Kott, of counsel;

Marielena Piriz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Atoo Heera Sakhrani and Kazuyo Ueda Sakhrani appeal from a series of orders entered by the Law Division dismissing their complaint based on the Entire Controversy Doctrine and principles of comity. In their complaint filed pro se in the Superior Court of Bergen County on April 7, 2004, containing 256 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations, plaintiffs attempted to setout a cause of action grounded in violations of N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 of the Consumer Fraud Act; common law fraud; and an action for quiet title. They also sought compensatory and punitive damages.

At the time plaintiffs filed this complaint in state court, another action involving the same legal issues and substantially the same parties was pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Atoo Heera Sakhrani, et al., No. 02-2935 (D.N.J. filed June 20, 2002). As the caption of this case shows, plaintiffs were named as defendants in the federal case. The federal action remains an actively litigated matter.

After reviewing the record before us, and in light of prevailing legal standards, we affirm. We are satisfied that plaintiffs' arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1). We find no legal basis to deviate from well-established comity principles requiring us to defer to the court which first acquires jurisdiction, in this case the Federal District Court. Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Auth., 78 N.J. 321, 324 (1978); Exxon Research & Eng'g Co., v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 341 N.J. Super. 489, 505 (App. Div. 2001).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1151-04T2

February 17, 2006