Preview
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 1 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
Asatrian Law Group, L.L.C.
15 Warren Street, PH-West Tel: (201) 464-5155
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Fax: (201) 343-4335
Admitted in State of NJ Email: MartinAsatrianLaw@gmail.com
November 18, 2020
Via efile
Hon., Robert C. Wilson, J.S.C.
Clerk, Bergen County Superior Court
Bergen County Justice Center
10 Main Street
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
Re: Flugger and Hayes v. A&A Ridgewood Registered Professional
Nurses Association, Inc., et al
Docket No.: BER-L-7546-19
Dear Judge Wilson:
Counsel for Plaintiff hereby makes the following motion for your recusal and
disqualification, pursuant to R. 1:12-2; N.J.S.A. 2A:15-49; Bonnet v. Stewart, 155 N.J. Super.
326,382 A.2d 930 (App. Div. 1978), See also Clawans v. Schakat, 49 N.J. Super. 415,140 A.2d
234 (App. Div. 1958). Kindly be advised, submission of a recusal motion to the challenged judge
is not only required by statute and rule, but also sound practice. Such a serious motion is also in
the best interest of the clients and parties in this case. Counsel for plaintiff, respectfully requests
Your Honor at your discretion to appoint three disinterested persons todecide the motion to recuse
which is permissible by statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-50. See Clawans v. Waugh, 10 N.J. Super. 605,
77 A.2d 519 (Cty. Dist.Ct.1950). Otherwise, a party that may be dissatisfied with a denial of a
tecusal motion may appeal.
In the case at bar, Plaintiffs who are highly reputable members of the nursing community
filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. a Bergen County
law firm with retired Bergen County Judges Conte, Retired (Bergen County Judge), and Retired
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 2 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
Bergen County Judge Carroll being either of Counsel or a named Counsel at the time of the action.
In fact, Retired Bergen County Judge Carroll contacted Plaintiff's Counsel on this very case.
Plaintiff's filed a complaint against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A., and the
A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc et. Al. Margaret Hayes, a
member of the board of A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc., for
over twenty-five (25 years). The causes of action of the lawsuit against the law firm were for
breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and other related causes of action. The causes of action
against the AA Registry were for retaliation, harassment, defamation, and other related causes of
action. After the lawsuit was timely and properly filed, Andrew Bolson filed a Motion to Dismiss
in Lieu of filing an Answer. It is important to note, Andrew Bolson was a named party and a
partner of the firm and an advocate in a prior action in the Chancery Division.
At oral arguments on January 10, 2020 before Your Honor, Plaintiff's Counsel made an
appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. John A. Conte, Jr. Esq., and Andrew Bolson made
appearances on behalf of the law firm and the co-defendant AA Registry (Please see complete and
unabridged transcripts of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Filing an Answer as Exhibit A). Your
Honor stated that Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and Conte, P.A., is clearly precluded since there was
no “attorney-client relationship” between the plaintiff and the defendant law firm. “A law firm has
aright to represent their clients.” (Exhibit A; Transcript 1-10). Your Honor dismissed every single
count against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. with prejudice, without the law firm
filing an Answer, and without limited discovery, and without depositions, without any fact
investigation whatsoever based on the fact Ms. Hayes who never waived her right to attorney client
privilege. Ms. Hayes was and still is a member of the board of A &A Registry that is being
represented by the Meyerson law firm against her rights as a client, member, and party.
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 3 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
On August 8, 2019, on a telephone conference by your Honor on a case entitled Asatrian
v. Bergen Catholic et. al (Ber-L-001440-18) (where Counsel for the Plaintiffs was named as a
Third Party Defendant), Your Honor made the following statements on the record (See Attached
Exhibit B: Transcript of Telephone Conference pages 1 through 54), without any discovery being
propounded by any party whatsoever. In the absence of any discovery, in_a case involving the
alleged sexual abuse of a minor by a wrestling coach, the following statements were made in the
order of appearance by Your Honor.
It is important to note, Your Honor is required as a respected member of the Judiciary and
having been specifically trained as to sensitivity and accordingly on these type of highly traumatic
cases to set the appropriate tone of the courtroom. Especially when it comes to sensitive matters
like domestic violence, sexual abuse and sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn, and
respectful, not demeaning, or sophomoric. In these highly sensitive cases, a Superior Court
Judge is not to make comments or remarks about “fun and games.” See Attached as Exhibit C
In the Matter of John F. Russo, Jr. (D-100-18) (082636) (Writing by Justice Rabner, C.J.
writing for the Court.
In the case referenced above, the Your Honor used the following words in a highly sensitive
case before any evidence was ever produced, “We need to have them all come in for a big old dog
and pony show, » 6 “That story is a story that would be great—be great for all the press and for
tabloid journalism in general,” “all the histrionics,” “And so of course, now what’s going to happen
is I’m going to get a bunch of jurors, like Frances McDormand here, the police chief from Fargo.
We're going to have common sense, and they’re going to see right through it. But—but we have
to destroy everybody in the process,” “And then when we get to the endgame, then we will have a
big old party in my courtroom...,” And—of course—well, it’s fun but, of course, it’s going to be
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 4 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
just a completely destructive war with no endgame other than vengeance and revenge and
destruction and histrionics.” “Which will be fun too for, everybody except for the parties and for
the jurors and anybody who---but it will be good for the lawyers.”
Your Honor further states at the conference, “Well, that’s his tough luck. I’m—if they want
a deposition before he goes to school, fine. But he (the plaintiff) decided---maybe he didn’t. Maybe
there were people behind him. But he decided he wanted to sue and destroy some people’s
reputation for some money because of damages he incurred, so he brought this on.” Your
Honor is referring to the Plaintiff in the above-referenced case on the record. Your Honor further
states the following on the record below in connection with his thoughts on a motion to dismiss in
lieu of filing an Answer. “Okay.. So then you kind understand how motions to dismiss (in lieu
of to the Flugger Case), are generally never ever given. And so it would be would be what we
call a Pyrrhic Victory, and we don’t want any more Pyrrhic victories.”
Your Honor denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice on one case without creating
a record for purposes of an Appeal or holding oral arguments, and yet Your Honor granted with
prejudice Meyerson’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer with Prejudice. Your Honor further
states, “We do not want any more dog and pony shows. We want a final conclusive battle
royale with complete destruction of everyone all at the end.” Your further states on the record
without any exchange of written discovery, without any inspections, without any depositions,
without any evidence whatsoever, “Yeah, well, it won’t be that much of a pleasure if you all decide
to destroy a bunch of individuals in this lawsuit for no real gain. It---I guess there’s the old
expression “there’s no there there.” “And I understand what started this off and the revenge.”
Judge Wilson ends the hearing on the record, “Except that the litigation itself is that carnage. Have
fun, gentlemen.”
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 5 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
With the most utmost respect Your Honor made adverse rulings to Plaintiffs counsel in
this case. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and ordered Your Honor sua sponte to
make findings of law and fact as to the decision to deny a prior victim to testify. (See Attached
Exhibit D). Your honor on or about September 21, 2020, ordered a “litigation shield” for your law
clerk Jade Sobh and instructed Counsel not to discuss this matter with Mr. Sobh without any
explanation whatsoever and in an untimely fashion 20 days after the hiring of the law clerk.(See
attached as Exhibit E; Litigation Shield Order)(See also Exhibit F; Your Honor’s Order compelling
telephone records with no attorney-client privilege protections whatsoever)(See also attached as
Exhibit G; Plaintiff's Counsel Interlocutory Appeal as to the Compulsion by Judge Wilson of
Telephone Records) (See also attached Exhibit H; Judge Wilson’s March 30, 2020 Status
Conference).
In conclusion, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks in the best interests of his clients and
public confidence in the Judiciary that Your Honor kindly recuse yourself for the following
reasons, laws set forth above, and facts set forth above and attached as exhibits. In order to avoid
adverse appearances, Plaintiff's Counsel kindly asks with the utmost respect and deference that
Your Honor appoint a three-member panel in order to have a hearing on this matter in order to
avoid yet another appeal to the Appellate Division. Of course, Your Honor may choose a panel of
Judges as permitted by Statute to hear the motion. After long and serious deliberation, in the best
interests of my clients, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully and tactfully requests your recusal. As
stated in the outset of this filing, this motion for recusal is required of counsel and it is permitted
by statute, is in the best interests of the clients, and equally importantly Plaintiffs Counsel should
have to worry about zealously representing his clients before Your Honor, and at the same time,
filing Appeals against Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant for fear of reprisal by Your Honor.
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 6 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks that Your Honor appreciate the great difficulty,
complexity, and the mind numbing calculation that is required in appearing before Your
Honor as a zealous advocate on one hand, and at the same time, appearing before Your
Honor as a Third Party Defendant. Your Honor can solve the precarious position Plaintiff’s
Counsel finds himself along with his precious clients, by simply recusing yourself from the
cases in which Plaintiff’s Counsel is an advocate. Your Honor I plead with this fine Court
to recuse yourself in the best interests of the clients, public confidence, and in the best
interests of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
de / c( YL
in V. Asatrian, Esq.
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 7 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
EXHIBIT A
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 8 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
SUPERIOR co} UR
T OF NE W
LAW DIVISIO Ns JERSEY
CIVIL Pa rt
BERGEN COUNTY
DOCKET No,:
BER-L-7546~1
A.D. 9
S e
NOREEN FLUGGER
AND
MARGARET HAYES, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) TRANSCRIPT
) FE
vs. MOTION
A&A RIDGEWOO D
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
NURSES
ASSOCIATION,
ET AL.,
Defendants,
Place: Bergen County Justice
10 Main Street Center
Hackensack,
New Jersey 07601
BEFORE: Date: January 10, 2020
HONORABLE ROBERT Cc. WILSON, J.S.C,
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED By:
JOSEPH P, FITENI, ESQ., (Coughlin Duffy, L.L.P.)
APPEARANCES;
MARTIN ASATRIAN
, ESQ.
Attorney for
Pl aintiffs
ANDREW BOLSO N,
ESQ. AND
JOHN A. CONT:
E, JR, , ESQ., (Meyerson
& Conte, P.A.) Fox Mancinelli
Attorneys for
Defendants
Transcriber:
Nitsa Carroz
PHOENIX TRANSC za
! RIPTION
796 Macopin Ro,
ad
West Milford,
NJ 07480
(862) 248-0670
Audio Recorded
Recording Op
r: Maria Marcano
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 9 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
INDEX
Colloquy re: Housekeeping PAGE
beeen
Tt tee
ee eee 34
MOT. ION TO
SQTION TO DISMISS:
DISMISS:
ARGUMENTS:
BY: Mr. Bolson PAGE
BY: Mr. Asatrian 4,22
12,28
THE LUU
a COURT?
RT:
Decision PAGE
32
BER- -007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 10 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
(Proceeding commenced at 10:05:05 a.m.)
THE COURT: This is the matter of Noreen
Flugger and Margaret Hayes versus AGA Ridgewood
Registered Professional Nurses Association,
Janet
Kelly, Janet Dobbs, Kathleen Beecey (phonetic) , Lucille
Hobner (phonetic), Meyerson, Fox Mancinelli and Conte
P.A. Counsel, can I have your appearances on L~7546-
19? Go ahead, plaintiff first.
MR. ASATRIAN: Good morning, Your Honor,
10 Martin Asatrian, ~A-
aA- S- T-R
A-T- -T-
R- I-a~
A-N , from the Asatrian Law
11 Group, 15 Warren Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, I
12 represent the Plaintiffs, Ms. Noreen Flugger and Ms.
13 Margaret Hayes.
14 THE COURT: Yeah, I know you've been to court
is before, currently with the Chancery Division,
16 MR. ASATRIAN: I was, Your Honor, I was.
17 THE COURT: All right. Counsel, can I have
18 your appearances, please?
19 MR. BOLSON: Good morning, Your Honor, Andrew
20 Bolson from the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli
21 and Conte, on behalf of the defendants and [ have -~
22 MR. CONTE: May it please the Court, Your
23 Honor, John Conte, Jr., also with Meyerson, Fox,
24 Mancinelli and Conte, also on behalf of the defendants,
25 THE COURT: All right. You guys are the
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 11 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
movants.
MR. BOLSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But it’s all kind of mixed in
here. So you have ~~ like count nine, the claims
against your law firm Do you want to do with that one
first?
MR. BOLSON: I would love to, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And then we’1ll break them down to
other counts.
10 MR. BOLSON: I’m frankly disturbed by the
11 count, Your Honor -—
12 THE COURT: Well, don’t be disturbed. This
13 is -- this is the business we have chosen.
14 MR. BOLSON: Yeah, you’re right but Mr.
15 Asatrian has decided to file a lawsuit against my law
16 firm for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty
17 and promissory estoppel or not --
18 THE COURT: Well, you represented his client?
19 MR. BOLSON We did not represent his client.
20 THE COURT: They’ re suing you for malpractice
21 and you didn’t represent the client?
22 MR. BOLSON: I don’t -- yeah --
23 THE COURT: I see. Now, that sometimes can
24 happen but those facts are very discrete and you’re
25 saying those facts don’t exist in this case?
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 12 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
5
MR. BOLSON: Not at all. We don’t understand
it and we pleaded that and what I -- in his opposition,
he doesn’t even address it. He doesn’t even address at
all the issues of the counts against my firm. So I
presume that they're actually unopposed, that’s how I
took them.
THE COURT: Okay, all right. So we'll get
the -- now, counts one and two and I made allusions
that there would -- was a Chancery Division matter, Do
10 you want to talk about those two counts?
11 MR. BOLSON: Let me just get out the --
12 MR. CONTE: Need the complaint?
13 MR. BOLSON: Just give me one second to get
14 my brief, Your Honor, so I can talk about counts one
15 and two, which are the -- I believe it’ s the defamation
16 count, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: And emotional distress, I think,
18 no?
>
19 MR. BOLSON: “yes. In terms of the defamation
20 count, plaintiff’s complaint doesn’t even indicate a
21 defamatory statement. In order to have a defamation,
22 you have to have a -- you have to state the statement
23 which you claim to be defamatory. In the previous
24 litigation, during the dep --
25 THE COURT: Yep, that’s all right, keep
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 13 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
going.
MR. BOLSON: In the previous litigation, at
the deposition of Ms. Kelly, Mr. Asatrian discussed
numerous times a statement that -- that my client
claims that she said that his client was untrustworthy.
Possibly, that’s the statement that he claims to be
defamatory. If that was the case, her deposition was
in -- the statute of limitations would have run on
that.
10 So -- but we can’t even argue -- we don’t
11 even know which statement it is or when the statement
12 was made, so it’s hard to even say whether a statute
13 had run or not because you don’t have a statement,
14 which is, as a preliminary matter, it fails to state a
15 cause of action.
16 THE COURT: And then emotional distress?
17 MR. BOLSON: I mean, for the same reasons. I
18 mean, all these actions are related to the -- to the dl
19 previous matter. The entire -- I mean, we briefed the
20 Entire Controversy Doctrine at length because we
21 believe it absolutely applies in this case.
22 Ms. Flugger was removed as a trustee
23 organization, as a founding member, in August of 2018,
24 right when the prior litigation was commencing. They
25 had eight months to amend their complaint. They
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 14 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
7
proceeded to effectively act in that litigation, as if
those matters were part of the litigation.
He says, you know, Judge DeLuca only gave him
90 days worth of discovery. They chose to spend those
90 days on these issues, that’s what the Subject of the
discovery was. I attended those depositions and that’s
what the discovery was.
To also pinpoint -- to -- to go back to the
legal malpractice and the matters involving my firm, I
10 also noticed in his opposition that he addresses issues
11 on conflict and is seeking now to disqualify my law
12 firm without even filing a cross motion, which I was a
13 little confused by and also without citing any case law
14 as to why that would be relevant or how that would
15 possibly be.
16 But in any case, what I was also disturbed by
17 was that, he claims that my client says in the
18 deposition that I directed my client to terminate Ms.
19 Flugger. He neither cites to the transcript, provides
20 the transcript and frankly, it just didn’t happen. I
21 have gone through the transcript, beyond being there.
22 She never said that comment and that, I find to be very
23 disturbing that, that comment wouldn’t be made and it’s
24 frankly not in the transcript and it never occurred.
25 THE COURT: Okay.
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 15 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
MR. BOLSON: As to the other allegations --
THE COURT: The other counts, yeah.
MR. BOLSON: -- are the subject of my motion
to dismiss. Curiously, the plaintiffs have named
Lucille Hobner and Kathleen Beecey as defendants in
this matter.
THE COURT: Were they involved in the last
matter?
MR. BOLSON They were not.
10 THE COURT: Right.
11 MR. BOLSON And but what was interesting
12 about their complaint, beyond that the Entire
13 Controversy Doctrine would still apply to them, is that
14 there is not a single allegation in their complaint
15 against them. They are just simply named but there is
16 no wrongdoing that is alleged by them. So it’s hard to
17 defend an allegation if there’s no allegation actually
18 made.
19 In addition, in regards to Lucille Hobner who
20 is a California resident and Janet Dobbs who is a South
21 Carolina resident, there is no personal jurisdiction.
22 Mr. Asatrian has sued these individuals in their
23 individual capacity, there is no personal jurisdiction
24 over them. I raised these issues in my motion to
25 dismiss and like the other issues, he did not address
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 16 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
them in his opposition at all and I presume that they
are unopposed, those issues.
To the larger issue of the Entire Controversy
Doctrine. Again, this is frankly why the Entire
Controversy Doctrine was established, in my mind. You
have -- it’s about avoiding waste, promoting efficiency
and fairness to the parties. In this case, the
plaintiffs knew exactly these claims, could have raised
them during the eight months of the Chancery
10 litigation, amended their complaint but they decided
11 not to.
12 And I say -- and I say that they knew about
13 these claims because Mr. Asatrian sent me a letter
14 indicating these exact claims during the previous
15 litigation and yet, still did not amend the complaint.
16 The letter, the demand letter to settle, was based upon
17 the claims that are actually solely in this case. So
18 he clearly knew about them in January of 2019, did
19 nothing. Case was dismissed in April -- actually,
20 April 5, 2019.
21 Ten days later, Mr. Asatrian sends me a
22 letter saying that he’s going to be filing numerous
23 lawsuits against my clients and my law firm for actions
24 that clearly he knew about, which occurred ten days
25 prior. Clearly, held -- clearly, they knew about it
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 17 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
10
and purposely held back those claims, seemingly, so
they could start another litigation, which would just
create additional costs, additional money to my
clients. Obviously, it’s a significant, you know,
stress event and you know, I -- again, they don’t even
address the salient issues.
In terms of the Entire Controversy Doctrine,
Mr. Asatrian doesn’t even provide any case law. The
only case law that I -- provided, that I see in his
10 opposition, was an unpublished opinion which wasn’t
11 even provided, which pursuant to the Court Rules, you
12 have to provide unpublished opinions to the Court and
13 to your adversary, it wasn’t provided. I have nothing
14 further, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Okay, we’ll get back to you.
16 MR. BOLSON Thank you, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Asatrian.
18 MR. ASATRIAN: Yes, Your Honor,
19 THE couRT: Do you want to address that?
20 Well, first of all, maybe we’1l start with the way we
21 started, with the way I started off. How do you get to
22 sue Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and Conte?
23 MR. ASATRIAN: Your Honor, I think as a
24 threshold issue, we have it backwards. I think we
25 should first raise the issue of disqualification --~
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 18 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862
THE COURT: li
No, I -~ no, that’ S the
want way I
to go.
MR, ASATRIAN: You’re the Judge, You
any decide
way you want, So I’ il address anything you want,
THE COURT: Because I could rule on it,
you’d like,
if
right now or do you -~ {7 ll give you
chance the
to address that ~~
MR. ASATRIAN: Your Honor, you’ re free
whatever to do
you want.
10
THE COURT: I know I am,
11
MR. ASATRIAN: T would like to be able to
12 have the Opportunity,
it’ Ss my constitution
13 al right
speak, to
14
THE COURT: Oh ~~
15
MR. ASATRIAN: But maybe you want to Maybe
16 stop that.
17
THE COURT: Well, I don’t know if you
18 what constitutional
know
right means,
19
MR. ASATRIAN: | I do.
20
THE COURT: You have a right to be an
21 attorney and to advocate a case, rv m
not abridging
22 that, I’ m
asking you a question at oral ar gument
23 why you as to
can sue, as a matter of law, Meyerson, Fox,
24 Mancinelli ang Conte.
25
MR. ASATRIAN:
Preview
BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 1 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 Asatrian Law Group, L.L.C. 15 Warren Street, PH-West Tel: (201) 464-5155 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Fax: (201) 343-4335 Admitted in State of NJ Email: MartinAsatrianLaw@gmail.com November 18, 2020 Via efile Hon., Robert C. Wilson, J.S.C. Clerk, Bergen County Superior Court Bergen County Justice Center 10 Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Re: Flugger and Hayes v. A&A Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc., et al Docket No.: BER-L-7546-19 Dear Judge Wilson: Counsel for Plaintiff hereby makes the following motion for your recusal and disqualification, pursuant to R. 1:12-2; N.J.S.A. 2A:15-49; Bonnet v. Stewart, 155 N.J. Super. 326,382 A.2d 930 (App. Div. 1978), See also Clawans v. Schakat, 49 N.J. Super. 415,140 A.2d 234 (App. Div. 1958). Kindly be advised, submission of a recusal motion to the challenged judge is not only required by statute and rule, but also sound practice. Such a serious motion is also in the best interest of the clients and parties in this case. Counsel for plaintiff, respectfully requests Your Honor at your discretion to appoint three disinterested persons todecide the motion to recuse which is permissible by statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-50. See Clawans v. Waugh, 10 N.J. Super. 605, 77 A.2d 519 (Cty. Dist.Ct.1950). Otherwise, a party that may be dissatisfied with a denial of a tecusal motion may appeal. In the case at bar, Plaintiffs who are highly reputable members of the nursing community filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. a Bergen County law firm with retired Bergen County Judges Conte, Retired (Bergen County Judge), and Retired BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 2 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 Bergen County Judge Carroll being either of Counsel or a named Counsel at the time of the action. In fact, Retired Bergen County Judge Carroll contacted Plaintiff's Counsel on this very case. Plaintiff's filed a complaint against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A., and the A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc et. Al. Margaret Hayes, a member of the board of A.A. Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Inc., for over twenty-five (25 years). The causes of action of the lawsuit against the law firm were for breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and other related causes of action. The causes of action against the AA Registry were for retaliation, harassment, defamation, and other related causes of action. After the lawsuit was timely and properly filed, Andrew Bolson filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of filing an Answer. It is important to note, Andrew Bolson was a named party and a partner of the firm and an advocate in a prior action in the Chancery Division. At oral arguments on January 10, 2020 before Your Honor, Plaintiff's Counsel made an appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. John A. Conte, Jr. Esq., and Andrew Bolson made appearances on behalf of the law firm and the co-defendant AA Registry (Please see complete and unabridged transcripts of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Filing an Answer as Exhibit A). Your Honor stated that Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and Conte, P.A., is clearly precluded since there was no “attorney-client relationship” between the plaintiff and the defendant law firm. “A law firm has aright to represent their clients.” (Exhibit A; Transcript 1-10). Your Honor dismissed every single count against Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli, and Conte, P.A. with prejudice, without the law firm filing an Answer, and without limited discovery, and without depositions, without any fact investigation whatsoever based on the fact Ms. Hayes who never waived her right to attorney client privilege. Ms. Hayes was and still is a member of the board of A &A Registry that is being represented by the Meyerson law firm against her rights as a client, member, and party. BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 3 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 On August 8, 2019, on a telephone conference by your Honor on a case entitled Asatrian v. Bergen Catholic et. al (Ber-L-001440-18) (where Counsel for the Plaintiffs was named as a Third Party Defendant), Your Honor made the following statements on the record (See Attached Exhibit B: Transcript of Telephone Conference pages 1 through 54), without any discovery being propounded by any party whatsoever. In the absence of any discovery, in_a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor by a wrestling coach, the following statements were made in the order of appearance by Your Honor. It is important to note, Your Honor is required as a respected member of the Judiciary and having been specifically trained as to sensitivity and accordingly on these type of highly traumatic cases to set the appropriate tone of the courtroom. Especially when it comes to sensitive matters like domestic violence, sexual abuse and sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn, and respectful, not demeaning, or sophomoric. In these highly sensitive cases, a Superior Court Judge is not to make comments or remarks about “fun and games.” See Attached as Exhibit C In the Matter of John F. Russo, Jr. (D-100-18) (082636) (Writing by Justice Rabner, C.J. writing for the Court. In the case referenced above, the Your Honor used the following words in a highly sensitive case before any evidence was ever produced, “We need to have them all come in for a big old dog and pony show, » 6 “That story is a story that would be great—be great for all the press and for tabloid journalism in general,” “all the histrionics,” “And so of course, now what’s going to happen is I’m going to get a bunch of jurors, like Frances McDormand here, the police chief from Fargo. We're going to have common sense, and they’re going to see right through it. But—but we have to destroy everybody in the process,” “And then when we get to the endgame, then we will have a big old party in my courtroom...,” And—of course—well, it’s fun but, of course, it’s going to be BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 4 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 just a completely destructive war with no endgame other than vengeance and revenge and destruction and histrionics.” “Which will be fun too for, everybody except for the parties and for the jurors and anybody who---but it will be good for the lawyers.” Your Honor further states at the conference, “Well, that’s his tough luck. I’m—if they want a deposition before he goes to school, fine. But he (the plaintiff) decided---maybe he didn’t. Maybe there were people behind him. But he decided he wanted to sue and destroy some people’s reputation for some money because of damages he incurred, so he brought this on.” Your Honor is referring to the Plaintiff in the above-referenced case on the record. Your Honor further states the following on the record below in connection with his thoughts on a motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an Answer. “Okay.. So then you kind understand how motions to dismiss (in lieu of to the Flugger Case), are generally never ever given. And so it would be would be what we call a Pyrrhic Victory, and we don’t want any more Pyrrhic victories.” Your Honor denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice on one case without creating a record for purposes of an Appeal or holding oral arguments, and yet Your Honor granted with prejudice Meyerson’s motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer with Prejudice. Your Honor further states, “We do not want any more dog and pony shows. We want a final conclusive battle royale with complete destruction of everyone all at the end.” Your further states on the record without any exchange of written discovery, without any inspections, without any depositions, without any evidence whatsoever, “Yeah, well, it won’t be that much of a pleasure if you all decide to destroy a bunch of individuals in this lawsuit for no real gain. It---I guess there’s the old expression “there’s no there there.” “And I understand what started this off and the revenge.” Judge Wilson ends the hearing on the record, “Except that the litigation itself is that carnage. Have fun, gentlemen.” BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 5 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 With the most utmost respect Your Honor made adverse rulings to Plaintiffs counsel in this case. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and ordered Your Honor sua sponte to make findings of law and fact as to the decision to deny a prior victim to testify. (See Attached Exhibit D). Your honor on or about September 21, 2020, ordered a “litigation shield” for your law clerk Jade Sobh and instructed Counsel not to discuss this matter with Mr. Sobh without any explanation whatsoever and in an untimely fashion 20 days after the hiring of the law clerk.(See attached as Exhibit E; Litigation Shield Order)(See also Exhibit F; Your Honor’s Order compelling telephone records with no attorney-client privilege protections whatsoever)(See also attached as Exhibit G; Plaintiff's Counsel Interlocutory Appeal as to the Compulsion by Judge Wilson of Telephone Records) (See also attached Exhibit H; Judge Wilson’s March 30, 2020 Status Conference). In conclusion, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks in the best interests of his clients and public confidence in the Judiciary that Your Honor kindly recuse yourself for the following reasons, laws set forth above, and facts set forth above and attached as exhibits. In order to avoid adverse appearances, Plaintiff's Counsel kindly asks with the utmost respect and deference that Your Honor appoint a three-member panel in order to have a hearing on this matter in order to avoid yet another appeal to the Appellate Division. Of course, Your Honor may choose a panel of Judges as permitted by Statute to hear the motion. After long and serious deliberation, in the best interests of my clients, Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully and tactfully requests your recusal. As stated in the outset of this filing, this motion for recusal is required of counsel and it is permitted by statute, is in the best interests of the clients, and equally importantly Plaintiffs Counsel should have to worry about zealously representing his clients before Your Honor, and at the same time, filing Appeals against Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant for fear of reprisal by Your Honor. BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 6 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 Plaintiff's Counsel respectfully asks that Your Honor appreciate the great difficulty, complexity, and the mind numbing calculation that is required in appearing before Your Honor as a zealous advocate on one hand, and at the same time, appearing before Your Honor as a Third Party Defendant. Your Honor can solve the precarious position Plaintiff’s Counsel finds himself along with his precious clients, by simply recusing yourself from the cases in which Plaintiff’s Counsel is an advocate. Your Honor I plead with this fine Court to recuse yourself in the best interests of the clients, public confidence, and in the best interests of justice. Respectfully submitted, de / c( YL in V. Asatrian, Esq. BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 7 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 EXHIBIT A BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 8 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 SUPERIOR co} UR T OF NE W LAW DIVISIO Ns JERSEY CIVIL Pa rt BERGEN COUNTY DOCKET No,: BER-L-7546~1 A.D. 9 S e NOREEN FLUGGER AND MARGARET HAYES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) TRANSCRIPT ) FE vs. MOTION A&A RIDGEWOO D REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NURSES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Defendants, Place: Bergen County Justice 10 Main Street Center Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 BEFORE: Date: January 10, 2020 HONORABLE ROBERT Cc. WILSON, J.S.C, TRANSCRIPT ORDERED By: JOSEPH P, FITENI, ESQ., (Coughlin Duffy, L.L.P.) APPEARANCES; MARTIN ASATRIAN , ESQ. Attorney for Pl aintiffs ANDREW BOLSO N, ESQ. AND JOHN A. CONT: E, JR, , ESQ., (Meyerson & Conte, P.A.) Fox Mancinelli Attorneys for Defendants Transcriber: Nitsa Carroz PHOENIX TRANSC za ! RIPTION 796 Macopin Ro, ad West Milford, NJ 07480 (862) 248-0670 Audio Recorded Recording Op r: Maria Marcano BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 9 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 INDEX Colloquy re: Housekeeping PAGE beeen Tt tee ee eee 34 MOT. ION TO SQTION TO DISMISS: DISMISS: ARGUMENTS: BY: Mr. Bolson PAGE BY: Mr. Asatrian 4,22 12,28 THE LUU a COURT? RT: Decision PAGE 32 BER- -007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 10 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 (Proceeding commenced at 10:05:05 a.m.) THE COURT: This is the matter of Noreen Flugger and Margaret Hayes versus AGA Ridgewood Registered Professional Nurses Association, Janet Kelly, Janet Dobbs, Kathleen Beecey (phonetic) , Lucille Hobner (phonetic), Meyerson, Fox Mancinelli and Conte P.A. Counsel, can I have your appearances on L~7546- 19? Go ahead, plaintiff first. MR. ASATRIAN: Good morning, Your Honor, 10 Martin Asatrian, ~A- aA- S- T-R A-T- -T- R- I-a~ A-N , from the Asatrian Law 11 Group, 15 Warren Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, I 12 represent the Plaintiffs, Ms. Noreen Flugger and Ms. 13 Margaret Hayes. 14 THE COURT: Yeah, I know you've been to court is before, currently with the Chancery Division, 16 MR. ASATRIAN: I was, Your Honor, I was. 17 THE COURT: All right. Counsel, can I have 18 your appearances, please? 19 MR. BOLSON: Good morning, Your Honor, Andrew 20 Bolson from the law firm of Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli 21 and Conte, on behalf of the defendants and [ have -~ 22 MR. CONTE: May it please the Court, Your 23 Honor, John Conte, Jr., also with Meyerson, Fox, 24 Mancinelli and Conte, also on behalf of the defendants, 25 THE COURT: All right. You guys are the BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 11 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 movants. MR. BOLSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: But it’s all kind of mixed in here. So you have ~~ like count nine, the claims against your law firm Do you want to do with that one first? MR. BOLSON: I would love to, Your Honor. THE COURT: And then we’1ll break them down to other counts. 10 MR. BOLSON: I’m frankly disturbed by the 11 count, Your Honor -— 12 THE COURT: Well, don’t be disturbed. This 13 is -- this is the business we have chosen. 14 MR. BOLSON: Yeah, you’re right but Mr. 15 Asatrian has decided to file a lawsuit against my law 16 firm for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty 17 and promissory estoppel or not -- 18 THE COURT: Well, you represented his client? 19 MR. BOLSON We did not represent his client. 20 THE COURT: They’ re suing you for malpractice 21 and you didn’t represent the client? 22 MR. BOLSON: I don’t -- yeah -- 23 THE COURT: I see. Now, that sometimes can 24 happen but those facts are very discrete and you’re 25 saying those facts don’t exist in this case? BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 12 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 5 MR. BOLSON: Not at all. We don’t understand it and we pleaded that and what I -- in his opposition, he doesn’t even address it. He doesn’t even address at all the issues of the counts against my firm. So I presume that they're actually unopposed, that’s how I took them. THE COURT: Okay, all right. So we'll get the -- now, counts one and two and I made allusions that there would -- was a Chancery Division matter, Do 10 you want to talk about those two counts? 11 MR. BOLSON: Let me just get out the -- 12 MR. CONTE: Need the complaint? 13 MR. BOLSON: Just give me one second to get 14 my brief, Your Honor, so I can talk about counts one 15 and two, which are the -- I believe it’ s the defamation 16 count, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: And emotional distress, I think, 18 no? > 19 MR. BOLSON: “yes. In terms of the defamation 20 count, plaintiff’s complaint doesn’t even indicate a 21 defamatory statement. In order to have a defamation, 22 you have to have a -- you have to state the statement 23 which you claim to be defamatory. In the previous 24 litigation, during the dep -- 25 THE COURT: Yep, that’s all right, keep BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 13 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 going. MR. BOLSON: In the previous litigation, at the deposition of Ms. Kelly, Mr. Asatrian discussed numerous times a statement that -- that my client claims that she said that his client was untrustworthy. Possibly, that’s the statement that he claims to be defamatory. If that was the case, her deposition was in -- the statute of limitations would have run on that. 10 So -- but we can’t even argue -- we don’t 11 even know which statement it is or when the statement 12 was made, so it’s hard to even say whether a statute 13 had run or not because you don’t have a statement, 14 which is, as a preliminary matter, it fails to state a 15 cause of action. 16 THE COURT: And then emotional distress? 17 MR. BOLSON: I mean, for the same reasons. I 18 mean, all these actions are related to the -- to the dl 19 previous matter. The entire -- I mean, we briefed the 20 Entire Controversy Doctrine at length because we 21 believe it absolutely applies in this case. 22 Ms. Flugger was removed as a trustee 23 organization, as a founding member, in August of 2018, 24 right when the prior litigation was commencing. They 25 had eight months to amend their complaint. They BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 14 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 7 proceeded to effectively act in that litigation, as if those matters were part of the litigation. He says, you know, Judge DeLuca only gave him 90 days worth of discovery. They chose to spend those 90 days on these issues, that’s what the Subject of the discovery was. I attended those depositions and that’s what the discovery was. To also pinpoint -- to -- to go back to the legal malpractice and the matters involving my firm, I 10 also noticed in his opposition that he addresses issues 11 on conflict and is seeking now to disqualify my law 12 firm without even filing a cross motion, which I was a 13 little confused by and also without citing any case law 14 as to why that would be relevant or how that would 15 possibly be. 16 But in any case, what I was also disturbed by 17 was that, he claims that my client says in the 18 deposition that I directed my client to terminate Ms. 19 Flugger. He neither cites to the transcript, provides 20 the transcript and frankly, it just didn’t happen. I 21 have gone through the transcript, beyond being there. 22 She never said that comment and that, I find to be very 23 disturbing that, that comment wouldn’t be made and it’s 24 frankly not in the transcript and it never occurred. 25 THE COURT: Okay. BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 15 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 MR. BOLSON: As to the other allegations -- THE COURT: The other counts, yeah. MR. BOLSON: -- are the subject of my motion to dismiss. Curiously, the plaintiffs have named Lucille Hobner and Kathleen Beecey as defendants in this matter. THE COURT: Were they involved in the last matter? MR. BOLSON They were not. 10 THE COURT: Right. 11 MR. BOLSON And but what was interesting 12 about their complaint, beyond that the Entire 13 Controversy Doctrine would still apply to them, is that 14 there is not a single allegation in their complaint 15 against them. They are just simply named but there is 16 no wrongdoing that is alleged by them. So it’s hard to 17 defend an allegation if there’s no allegation actually 18 made. 19 In addition, in regards to Lucille Hobner who 20 is a California resident and Janet Dobbs who is a South 21 Carolina resident, there is no personal jurisdiction. 22 Mr. Asatrian has sued these individuals in their 23 individual capacity, there is no personal jurisdiction 24 over them. I raised these issues in my motion to 25 dismiss and like the other issues, he did not address BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 16 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 them in his opposition at all and I presume that they are unopposed, those issues. To the larger issue of the Entire Controversy Doctrine. Again, this is frankly why the Entire Controversy Doctrine was established, in my mind. You have -- it’s about avoiding waste, promoting efficiency and fairness to the parties. In this case, the plaintiffs knew exactly these claims, could have raised them during the eight months of the Chancery 10 litigation, amended their complaint but they decided 11 not to. 12 And I say -- and I say that they knew about 13 these claims because Mr. Asatrian sent me a letter 14 indicating these exact claims during the previous 15 litigation and yet, still did not amend the complaint. 16 The letter, the demand letter to settle, was based upon 17 the claims that are actually solely in this case. So 18 he clearly knew about them in January of 2019, did 19 nothing. Case was dismissed in April -- actually, 20 April 5, 2019. 21 Ten days later, Mr. Asatrian sends me a 22 letter saying that he’s going to be filing numerous 23 lawsuits against my clients and my law firm for actions 24 that clearly he knew about, which occurred ten days 25 prior. Clearly, held -- clearly, they knew about it BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 17 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 10 and purposely held back those claims, seemingly, so they could start another litigation, which would just create additional costs, additional money to my clients. Obviously, it’s a significant, you know, stress event and you know, I -- again, they don’t even address the salient issues. In terms of the Entire Controversy Doctrine, Mr. Asatrian doesn’t even provide any case law. The only case law that I -- provided, that I see in his 10 opposition, was an unpublished opinion which wasn’t 11 even provided, which pursuant to the Court Rules, you 12 have to provide unpublished opinions to the Court and 13 to your adversary, it wasn’t provided. I have nothing 14 further, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay, we’ll get back to you. 16 MR. BOLSON Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Asatrian. 18 MR. ASATRIAN: Yes, Your Honor, 19 THE couRT: Do you want to address that? 20 Well, first of all, maybe we’1l start with the way we 21 started, with the way I started off. How do you get to 22 sue Meyerson, Fox, Mancinelli and Conte? 23 MR. ASATRIAN: Your Honor, I think as a 24 threshold issue, we have it backwards. I think we 25 should first raise the issue of disqualification --~ BER-L-007546-19 11/18/2020 6:07:05 PM Pg 18 of 163 Trans ID: LCV20202099862 THE COURT: li No, I -~ no, that’ S the want way I to go. MR, ASATRIAN: You’re the Judge, You any decide way you want, So I’ il address anything you want, THE COURT: Because I could rule on it, you’d like, if right now or do you -~ {7 ll give you chance the to address that ~~ MR. ASATRIAN: Your Honor, you’ re free whatever to do you want. 10 THE COURT: I know I am, 11 MR. ASATRIAN: T would like to be able to 12 have the Opportunity, it’ Ss my constitution 13 al right speak, to 14 THE COURT: Oh ~~ 15 MR. ASATRIAN: But maybe you want to Maybe 16 stop that. 17 THE COURT: Well, I don’t know if you 18 what constitutional know right means, 19 MR. ASATRIAN: | I do. 20 THE COURT: You have a right to be an 21 attorney and to advocate a case, rv m not abridging 22 that, I’ m asking you a question at oral ar gument 23 why you as to can sue, as a matter of law, Meyerson, Fox, 24 Mancinelli ang Conte. 25 MR. ASATRIAN: