April 12, 2011
DAVID HOHSFIELD, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-2108-09.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 30, 2011
Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking damages against defendant because she testified at trial, pursuant to the State's subpoena, when plaintiff was charged with violating the community supervision terms imposed on a prior conviction for a sex offense. The motion judge properly granted summary judgment, determining that defendant's testimony was protected by the litigation privilege, which provides immunity to witnesses "to ensure that participants in the judicial process act without fear of the threat of ruinous civil litigation . . . ." Loigman v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 185 N.J. 566, 581 (2006).
Plaintiff appealed, presenting the following arguments:
I. TRIAL COURT ERRORED [SIC] IN PREMATURELY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT WITHOUT ALLOWING APPELLANT DISCOVERY FIRST.
II. TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED APPELLANT HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO DISCOVERY BY FAILING TO ALLOW APPELLANT TIME NEEDED TO SECURE PRIOR COURT TRANSCRIPT PROCEEDING(S) THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT[']S TESTIMONY AGAINST THE APPELLANT.
III. DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OR ABUSE OF PROCESS.
IV. DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING . . . N.J.S.A. 2C:7-16, ET AL.
Although we could dismiss the appeal because plaintiff failed to file an appendix pursuant to Rule 2:6-1,*fn1 we find plaintiff's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.