June 6, 2008
FRANK DELLI SANTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., I/P/A LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. DC-8594-05.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 14, 2008
Before Judges Parker and Kestin.
In this Special Civil Part case, plaintiff Frank Delli Santi appeals pro se from an order of disposition entered on April 3, 2006 dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
A summary of the facts giving rise to this appeal is as follows. Plaintiff filed a previous complaint in Morris County Special Civil Part against Lowe's Home Improvement Centers, Inc. (Lowe's) alleging that Lowe's had depleted the value of nine merchandise cards given for store credit in May 2005. At that trial, Lowe's presented a witness who demonstrated that eight of the nine cards in question were used, along with twenty-four other merchandise cards, to purchase refrigerators on May 31, 2005, and that there was no depletion by Lowe's in the value of the cards; rather, plaintiff had "deliberately exhausted his store credit, and was therefore not entitled to compensation." Plaintiff appealed and we affirmed.
The day after his first complaint was dismissed, plaintiff filed a second complaint seeking reimbursement on the other twenty-four cards referred to in the previous trial. At trial on this matter in March 2006, the trial court questioned plaintiff as to his knowledge of the twenty-four cards at the time he filed the first action. When plaintiff acknowledged that those cards were in his possession at the time, Lowe's moved to dismiss on the ground that the entire controversy doctrine precluded the second complaint. That motion was granted, and plaintiff now appeals dismissal of the second complaint.
In this appeal, plaintiff argues essentially that the entire controversy doctrine should not be applied. We have carefully considered plaintiff's argument in light of the applicable law and we are satisfied that it lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Nevertheless, we add the following comment. Plaintiff could have and should have brought all of his claims in one action. See Cogdell v. Hospital Ctr., 116 N.J. 7, 15-16 (1989); Blanchard v. Beach Concrete Co., Inc., 150 N.J. Super. 277, 292-93 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 528 (1977). His failure to do so precludes his second complaint on essentially the same issue tried in the first case.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.