Thisopinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the TARLOCK SINGH v. GURMET SINGH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-0340-16T2

TARLOCK SINGH,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GURMET SINGH,

        Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

              Submitted November 14, 2017 – Decided December 14, 2017

              Before Judges Leone and Mawla.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Cape May County, Docket No.
              C-000029-10.

              Mark J. Molz, attorney for appellant.

              Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff appeals the August 31, 2016 order denying his motion

to enforce litigant's rights.            We affirm.
                                  I.

     The parties are brothers who were in the gas station business.

In May 2010, plaintiff Tarlock Singh filed an action against

defendant Gurmet Singh.   Defendant filed an answer and a counter-

claim, and the matter was referred to mediation.                On April 13,

2011, a final settlement agreement was reached.           The agreement was

signed by counsel in the presence of the parties, and duly filed.

          The agreement, in relevant part, states:

          4. Gurmet will indemnify Tarlock from any
          claims   arising   out   of   the corporate
          operations, past, present, or future, of
          Punjab Petroleum, GSDC, Soun Gas, Inc., and
          US   Gasoline,   Inc.,  including  all  tax
          obligations.

          5. Tarlock will indemnify Gurmet from any
          claims   arising   out   of   the   corporate
          operations, past, present, or future, of 777
          Enterprises, including all tax obligations.

     On June 25, 2012, Judge Anne McDonnell conducted a plenary

hearing to determine the enforceability of the agreement.                 After

hearing testimony from plaintiff, defendant, and the mediator,

Judge McDonnell found the agreement to be binding and enforceable.

The judge ordered defendant to pay plaintiff a total of $50,000

by July 31, 2012, plus another payment of $50,000 if paid by

September 30, 2015, or $60,000 if paid by September 30, 2016.

     In 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce litigant's

rights.   On   August   31,   2016,       Judge   Mark   H.   Sandson    denied

                                      2                                 A-0340-16T2
plaintiff's   motion   to   enforce       litigant's    rights.      Plaintiff

appeals.

                                  II.

     A motion to enforce litigant's right is governed by Rule

1:10-3.    "Rule 1:10-3 provides a 'means for securing relief and

allow[s] for judicial discretion in fashioning relief to litigants

when a party does not comply with a judgment or order.'"             N. Jersey

Media Grp., Inc. v. State Office of the Governor, 
451 N.J. Super.
 282, 296 (App. Div. 2017) (citation omitted) (quoting In re

N.J.A.C. 5:96, 
221 N.J. 1, 17-18 (2015)).              Thus, a trial court's

order is reviewed for abuse of discretion.             Id. at 299.    We must

hew to that standard of review.

                                 III.

     Plaintiff's notice of motion and certification complained

that his accounts had been levied for $37,221.29 on March 20,

2012, and for other amounts on later dates.              Plaintiff generally

alleged that "the State of New Jersey has held me jointly and

severally liable for debts arising from Panjab Petroleum[,] GJDC,

US Gas and Soungas [sic] Gas, Inc."

                                  A.

     Judge Sandson denied plaintiff's motion to enforce litigant's

rights regarding the $37,221.29 levy because:



                                      3                                A-0340-16T2
          The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents
          Plaintiff from revisiting the March 20, 2012
          levy of Plaintiff's TD Bank Account which
          occurred approximately three (3) months before
          the plenary hearing of June 25, 2012 and the
          issue regarding the levy was raised by
          Plaintiff's counsel in his trial brief and
          argued at the hearing[.]

     We agree with Judge Sandson that the doctrine of collateral

estoppel prevents plaintiff from relitigating the March 20, 2012

levy of $37,221.29 from his bank account.    Plaintiff does not deny

his counsel raised the May 20, 2012 levy for $37,221.29 prior to

Judge McDonnell's June 25, 2012 ruling, which ordered defendant

to pay plaintiff over $100,000.        Judge Sandson properly found

defendant had proven the elements of collateral estoppel:

          [T]he party asserting the bar must show that:
          (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to
          the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2)
          the issue was actually litigated in the prior
          proceeding; (3) the court in the prior
          proceeding issued a final judgment on the
          merits; (4) the determination of the issue was
          essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the
          party against whom the doctrine is asserted
          was a party to or in privity with a party to
          the earlier proceeding.

          [Winters v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 212
          N.J. 67, 85 (2012) (citation omitted).]

                                  B.

     Judge   Sandson   rejected   plaintiff's   motion   to   enforce

litigant's rights regarding the other levies because plaintiff



                                  4                           A-0340-16T2
failed to carry his burden of proof.          In a claim for breach of

contract,

            [o]ur law imposes on a plaintiff the burden
            to prove four elements: first, that "[t]he
            parties entered into a contract containing
            certain terms"; second, that "plaintiff[s] did
            what the contract required [them] to do";
            third, that "defendant[s] did not do what the
            contract required [them] to do[,]" defined as
            a "breach of the contract"; and fourth, that
            "defendant[s'] breach, or failure to do what
            the contract required, caused a loss to the
            plaintiff[s]."

            [Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 
225 N.J. 469, 482
            (2016) (alterations in original) (citation
            omitted) (quoting Model Jury Charge (Civil) §
            4.10A "The Contract Claim-Generally" (May
            1998)).]

      Plaintiff failed to carry his "burden of proof to establish

all   elements   of   [his]   cause   of   action,   including   damages."

Cumberland Cty. Improvement Auth. v. GSP Recycling Co., 
358 N.J.

Super. 484, 503 (App. Div.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 
177 N.J. 222 (2003).

      Judge Sandson ruled that "[p]laintiff did not meet his burden

of proof to show the tax levies to his bank accounts were the

result of 'claims arising out of the corporate operations, past,

present, or future, of Punjab Petroleum, GSDC, US Gasoline, Inc.,

and Soun Gas, Inc., including all tax obligations. . . .'"                We

agree with Judge Sandson that plaintiff has not shown that any of

the remaining levies are the result of the corporate operations

                                      5                            A-0340-16T2
of defendant's listed companies. None of the tax or levy documents

dated after 2012 lists Punjab Petroleum, GSDC, Soun Gas, Inc., or

US Gasoline, Inc. as the responsible party.

     Rather, the documents list "Tarlock Singh," his company "777

Enterprises," or both as the responsible party.1

     Plaintiff cites an August 17, 2006 letter from accountant

Bruce L. Young, which attached an IRS Form 4549 issued to plaintiff

in 2009.    Young states that the form shows dividends were assessed

to plaintiff because of cash not reported in Punjab's income tax

returns for 2006-2008, and that the total tax for those dividends

was $59,231.    However, that sum does not correspond to the amounts

in plaintiff's notice of motion or certification.     Moreover, the

form listed the taxpayer as "Tarlok Singh" and did not mention

Punjab at all.    Because the forms appeared to address plaintiff's

personal tax obligation rather than a claim arising out of Punjab's

corporate    operations,   Judge   Sandson   found   no   basis   for

indemnification.

     Given the paucity of evidence presented by the plaintiff, we

agree with the judge that plaintiff's bare assertion that the


1
  For example, plaintiff's certification cites "a letter dated
August 18, 2014[,] which says that the total amount due for an
audit from November, 2009 to December, 2010 is $100,978.11." That
letter from the State Division of Taxation is addressed to "Tarlock
Singh," and states the "responsible person" is Tarlock Singh,
trading as 777 Gas Enterprises."

                                   6                         A-0340-16T2
referenced debts are defendant's responsibility are insufficient

to warrant granting the motion to enforce litigant's rights.

                                    IV.

     Plaintiff argues defendant was not entitled to a favorable

ruling on the motion to enforce litigant's rights because defendant

did not comply with the 2016 order setting the discovery schedule

for both parties.        However, plaintiff did not make any such

argument to Judge Sandson.      Instead, plaintiff's counsel simply

noted to Judge Sandson, "unfortunately, neither party has been

able to complete the discovery that you ordered."              Plaintiff's

counsel then proceeded to argue the motion without seeking findings

or relief regarding discovery.

     Accordingly,   we    decline   to    address   this   claim.    "[O]ur

appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not

properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such

a presentation is available 'unless the questions so raised on

appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters

of great public interest.'"     Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 
62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) (citation omitted).            That is not the case

here.

     Finally, plaintiff cites a line in Judge Sandon's oral opinion

that plaintiff's claim "is barred by the statute of limitations."



                                     7                              A-0340-16T2
We need not reach that issue because plaintiff's claim failed on

the grounds discussed above.

    Plaintiff's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to

warrant discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

    Affirmed.




                               8                           A-0340-16T2