Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kimm v. Cha

November 28, 2000

MICHAEL S. KIMM,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V.
JIN CHA, ASIATIC ACCUPRESSURE, INC. AND SUNNY A/K/A ANGEL AHN,
DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



Before Judges Pressler, Ciancia and Alley.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ciancia, J.A.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 31, 2000

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County.

Plaintiff Michael S. Kimm, Esq., appeals from the denial of his application to restrain fee arbitration with his former clients, defendants Jin Cha, Asiatic Accupressure, Inc. and Sunny a/k/a/ Angel Ahn. The effect of the denial was to preclude litigation previously initiated by Kimm and compel fee arbitration. On the facts here presented, we believe plaintiff should have been permitted to continue the litigation against defendants and should not have been required to enter into fee arbitration.

The details of plaintiff's representation of defendants are not significant in the present context. Suffice it to say that representation was provided and legal fees in the amount of $25,500 are claimed as owing and unpaid. On July 16, 1999, plaintiff sent his former clients a letter briefly reciting the terms of their agreement and requesting payment of $25,500 that had been previously billed. The concluding paragraph of the letter set forth the notice required by R. 1:20A-6:

In accordance with R. 1:20A-6 of the New Jersey Rules of Court, a client has a right to demand an arbitration regarding any portion of the client's fee obligation by making this request in writing within 30 days of receiving this letter. If you seek an arbitration, you should call the Secretary of the Fee Arbitration Committee of your County, request a copy of the forms, and file the forms with a copy to my office. If you do not communicate with the Fee Committee within 30 days of this letter, you shall waive your right to seek fee arbitration. The Fee Committee's address is: Terrence J. Corriston, Esq., District II-A (North Bergen County), Breslin & Breslin, 41 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201)342-4014.

Kimm's letter was received and signed for, apparently by defendant Jin Cha, on August 3, 1999. No request for arbitration was made within thirty days. Indeed, no request for arbitration was made until sometime around early January 2000, approximately four months after the thirty-day time period had elapsed and after defendants had been served with the Law Division complaint that plaintiff had filed on September 15, 1999. Defendants sent their arbitration request to the Fee Committee Secretary of District II-A as per the information in plaintiff's letter.

Plaintiff is a member of a firm that has its New Jersey offices on Main Street in Hackensack. As it turns out, the proper fee committee district for plaintiff's location is not District II-A in Hackensack, but rather District II-B in Hackensack. The District II-A Secretary realized this and promptly sent the defendants' arbitration request from his office at 41 Main Street to the Secretary of District II-B, whose office was at 25 Main Street.

The Secretary for District II-B then did a number of things. He sent plaintiff a copy of the plea arbitration form and in the accompanying letter provided plaintiff with various details about the impending arbitration. The letter also stated that if a lawsuit was pending, plaintiff must request that it be stayed pending resolution by the Fee Committee. In a letter to the Bergen County Superior Court Civil Division Manager, the II-B Committee Secretary advised that he had determined that the request for arbitration was appropriate. He noted that plaintiff's complaint against defendants, which he had apparently reviewed, did not state that the clients had been given pre-action notice. In the Secretary's view, the complaint "should not have been docketed in the first place." *fn1 He requested that the litigation be stayed pending arbitration.

Plaintiff next sent a letter to the District II-B Secretary, stating that the Fee Arbitration Committee did not have jurisdiction and the arbitration proceeding should be dismissed. Plaintiff also amended his complaint to include a copy of his pre-action notice to defendants. The amendment was apparently accomplished before defendants filed a responsive pleading. R. 4:9-1.

Approximately four weeks after sending this letter to the District Secretary, plaintiff filed an order to show cause why arbitration should not be enjoined. The accompanying certification stated, in part, that plaintiff had not received any response to the letter he sent to the District Secretary. In response to plaintiff's motion, the District Secretary wrote to the court asserting he had conferred with an attorney in the Office of Attorney Ethics who agreed that plaintiff's pre-action notice was deficient. The Secretary also noted that plaintiff's complaint had failed to state that plaintiff had complied with the arbitration rules.

Plaintiff's request to have arbitration restrained so that the litigation could go forward was subsequently denied. The trial judge believed that an order to show cause was not the proper procedural vehicle, but on a substantive level he concluded that plaintiff's pre-action notice was "insufficient" under R. 1:20A-6. The judge relied on Chalom v. Benesh, 234 N.J. Super. 248 (Law Div. 1989) for the proposition that R. 1:20A-6 must be strictly interpreted.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the pre-action notice he provided to his former clients was sufficient to preclude arbitration if arbitration was not timely requested and also was sufficient to allow litigation on the claim. Additionally, he raises issues concerning the proper role of a District Fee Arbitration Secretary in circumstances such as these. We agree with plaintiff that on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.