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.

PERRY v. GOLD & LAINE

August 18, 2005.

VICTORIA PERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
GOLD & LAINE, P.C., ET AL, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge

OPINION

Defendants Gold & Laine, P.C., Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq., Evan E. Laine, Esq., Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Christy A. Cicalese, Michele Laine, Brandon Laine and Jessica Laine have filed a motion to impose monetary sanctions against Victoria Perry, Plaintiff pro se ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Perry"), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Ms. Perry, who on September 29, 2004 was declared a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of New Jersey, has filed numerous lawsuits and complaints against Defendants in state and federal court, as well as with certain administrative agencies, all stemming from her interactions with her neighbor, Evan Laine, an attorney who once represented Ms. Perry's mother in a legal matter, and with Mr. Laine's family. All of her previous actions have been dismissed and/or declared frivolous. By way of an Opinion dated May 25, 2005, which is hereby incorporated by reference, this Court dismissed all of her claims in the instant matter, finding that "[n]one of them state[d] a claim," and that they were "without any legal basis or justification," "baseless and scandalous." Perry v. Gold & Laine, P.C., 371 F.Supp.2d 622, 625-29 (D.N.J. 2005). The Court also enjoined her from filing pro se complaints in this District without first obtaining leave of court. Id. at 629-32.

  Defendants are presently seeking all of their fees and costs associated with this case, and they are also asking the court to impose an "extraordinary" and "substantial" sanction against Ms. Perry to be deposited into the State of New Jersey's treasury, the Superior Court's fund/treasury, the United States District Court, District of New Jersey's fund/treasury, or the New Jersey IOLTA fund. Ms. Perry has sent numerous faxes to the Court arguing, inter alia, against the imposition of any sanctions and furthermore, that I should recuse myself. For the reasons stated below, Ms. Perry's request for my recusal is denied and the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted.

  I. BACKGROUND*fn1

  In 1996 or 1997, Evan Laine, Esq. represented Ms. Perry's mother, Ollie, in a personal injury suit. In 1998, Ms. Perry moved into the house across the street from Evan Laine and his family, on Saxby Terrace in Cherry Hill. In December 1998, Evan Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C., agreed to represent Ms. Perry's mother once again. In 1999, Ms. Perry sent her neighbors, the Laines, various unsolicited items, including a disturbing letter discussing Plaintiff's religious beliefs, volunteering that Plaintiff was a virgin, and describing several sexual acts in great detail. In September 1999, the Honorable Francis J. Orlando, A.J.S.C. issued an order granting leave for Defendant Evan Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C. to be relieved as counsel to Ms. Perry's mother. In March 2000, Plaintiff twice attempted to file criminal charges against Defendants Evan Laine and Jeffrey Gold, a partner at Mr. Laine's law firm, for perjury, harassment, conspiracy and other charges. The Honorable Jeffrey Karl, J.M.C. and the Honorable John McFeeley, J.M.C. found that there was no probable cause on either occasion. In July 2000, Ms. Perry filed a statement with the Cherry Hill Police Department accusing Judge Karl of conspiring and discriminating against her. She even attempted to file ethical charges against Judge Karl before the Advisory Committee of Judicial Conduct. All charges against Judge Karl were declined and/or found meritless.

  In March 2001, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint against Defendant Evan Laine, Esq. Defendant Carl D. Poplar, Esq., representing Mr. Laine, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, which was granted. In April 2001, Plaintiff filed an ethics grievance against Defendant Poplar, which was also dismissed. In July 2001, Plaintiff sent letters to the New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services and Cherry Hill Police Department alleging that the Laines had neglected their teenage children by leaving them home alone.

  In October 2001, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Defendants Evan Laine, Jeffrey Gold, Gold & Laine, P.C., Michele Laine (Evan Laine's wife), Christy Cicalese (an employee of Gold & Laine, P.C.), Carl Poplar, and Poplar & Eastlack, the predecessor firm to Carl D. Poplar, P.C. Ms. Perry later sought to add Defendant Brandon Laine, son of Evan and Michele Laine, as a defendant. The Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky dismissed the entire case, with prejudice, on March 27, 2002. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the dismissal and a recusal of Judge Orlofsky, both of which Judge Orlofsky dismissed. Ms. Perry appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Orlofsky on April 24, 2003.

  In 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff filed complaints against Defendants with the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Case No. CAM-L005235-02, and with the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Case No. MER-L-803-03. The Honorable John A. Fratto, J.S.C. dismissed the Camden County complaint and the Honorable Linda Feinberg, A.J.S.C. dismissed the Mercer County complaint. Ms. Perry appealed Judge Fratto's decision and also filed another complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court, Camden County in February 2004. However, Defendants were never served with this complaint. Plaintiff also instituted charges against Evan and Michele Laine in Cherry Hill Municipal Court in February 2004.

  On August 4, 2004, Judge Fratto ordered that Ms. Perry "shall be restrained and prohibited from filing and/or instituting lawsuits, Complaints or other legal proceedings which are under and/or subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of New Jersey, whether they be Civil, Criminal, Quasi Criminal and/or Administrative, against . . . Gold & Laine, P.C.; Jeffrey E. Gold, Esquire, Evan E. Laine, Esquire; Carl D. Poplar, P.C.; Carl D. Poplar, Esquire, Christy Cicalese; Michele [sic] Laine, Brandon Laine; and Jessica Laine" without prior approval of a Judge of the Superior Court. Gold & Laine v. Perry, Docket No. L-1402-04, Order For Restraints (Aug. 4, 2004). The only exception to Judge Fratto's order is that Ms. Perry "is permitted to file or institute lawsuits, Complaints, legal proceedings, without prior approval, through an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey who has duly filed an appearance on her behalf in each proceeding and said attorney will sign each pleading and/or document regarding the Complaints, lawsuits and other legal proceedings." Id.

  On September 10, 2004, Judge Bernardin, a Municipal Court Judge in Cherry Hill, wrote Ms. Perry a letter indicating that he will "not be making a probable cause determination with regard to [her] pending complaints" because Judge Fratto's August 4, 2004 Order precludes him from doing so. He also informed Ms. Perry that "[p]ursuant to the Order [she] can make application to Judge Fratto" and that "[he] will await direction from the Superior Court." Letter from Honorable Daniel Bernardin to Victoria L. Perry of Sept. 10, 2004.

  On September 29, 2004, Judge Fratto issued an Amended Order with the same terms as the August 4, 2004 Order but which also designated the Honorable John McFeeley, III, P.J.M.C. as the judge to review any Municipal Court complaint filed by Ms. Perry against any of the aforementioned defendants. Gold & Laine v. Perry, Docket No. L-1402-04, Amended Order (Sept. 29, 2004).

  Plaintiff filed another complaint against Defendants in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 24, 2004. The complaint, docketed as Case No. 04-CV-5842 and encompassing the same allegations made herein, was dismissed by the Honorable Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. on December 10, 2004 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). On December 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a complaint and one day later, on December 22, 2004, filed the instant nine-count complaint, which was denominated as an amended complaint. Both were assigned a new docket number: Case No. 04-CV-6255.*fn2

  Ms. Perry's most current complaint in case number 04-CV-6255 asserted claims for "Harassment," "Conspiracy against Civil Rights by Case Fixing in Municipal Court," "Conspiracy against Civil Rights by Case Fixing in Camden County Superior Court," "Conspiracy Against Civil Rights by Abuse of Process," "Fraud Upon the Court," "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," "Fraud," "Conspiracy Against Rights By Endangerment: Knowingly Creating a Dangerous Environment for a Repeat Auto Accident," and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981, against Gold & Laine, P.C., Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq., Evan E. Laine, Esq., Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Christy A. Cicalese, Michele Laine, Brandon Laine and Jessica Laine. Am. Compl.

  On January 3, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56, and a motion to have Ms. Perry declared a vexatious litigator. Contemporaneous with filing the motion, Defendants issued a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(1)(A) enclosing a proposed form of Rule 11 Motion, which was not filed with the Court. In accordance with the Rule, Ms. Perry was advised that ...


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.