ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI et al. v. RICHARD P. HABER, ESQ. et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6680-04T56680-04T5

ATOO HEERA SAKHRANI and

KAZUYO UEDA SAKHRANI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

RICHARD P. HABER, ESQ. and

LAW FIRM OF ZUCKER, GOLDBERG &

ACKERMAN,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________________

 

Submitted March 29, 2006 - Decided May 12, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Wecker and Fuentes.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey

Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.

L-1592-05.

Atoo Heera Sakhrani and Kazuyo Ueda

Sakhrani, appellants pro se.

Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman, respondents

pro se (Richard P. Haber, of counsel and

on the pro se brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs Atoo Heera Sakhrani and Kazuyo Ueda Sakhrani appeal from the order of the Law Division dismissing their complaint against defendants' attorney, Richard P. Haber, and the law firm of Zucker, Goldberg & Ackerman. The complaint alleged that defendants committed a variety of civil wrongs, including fraud, in their role as attorneys prosecuting a foreclosure action on a mortgage encumbering real property owned by plaintiffs. The matter came before the Law Division by way of defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, filed in lieu of a responsive pleading.

Judge Isabel Stark granted defendants' motion. The court found that plaintiffs' had failed to allege any facts or law that would establish a prima facie case for fraud against defendants. We agree and affirm.

In their complaint, consisting of twenty-eight pages of factual allegations, plaintiffs attempted to set out several causes of action grounded in: 1) violations of the Consumer Fraud Act; 2) malicious abuse of process; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 4) common law fraud; 5) trespass; 6) civil conspiracy; 7) violation of the federal Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act; and 8) collateral estoppel.

"[T]he test for determining the adequacy of a pleading [is] whether a cause of action is 'suggested' by the facts." Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989); R. 4:6-2(e). In going about this task, we are required to search the complaint "in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary." Ibid. (quoting DiCristofaro v. Laurel Grove Memorial Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957)).

Here, the factual allegations in support of the disparate theories of liability advanced by plaintiffs in their pleading do not support a legally sustainable cause of action. As the lawyers for the foreclosing mortgagee, defendants acted at all times within the boundaries of fair and reasonable advocacy.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6680-04T5

May 12, 2006