Preview
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pglof5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627
FILED
NOV 98 2019
JOHN D, O'DWYER, 1.5.6.
HON. JOHN D. O’DWYER, J.S.C.
BERGEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
10 MAIN STREET, ROOM 324
HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601
(201) 527-2645
Order Prepared by the Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM F. KAETZ, LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY
Docket No.: BER-L-8734-18
Plaintiff,
Vv. Civil Action
PARAMUS DODGE, INC., NEW JERSEY ORDER.
DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
PAU R. RODRIGUEZ, BERGEN
COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
ALLEN GAILES,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER having been brought to the Court by Plaintiff William Kaetz, pro se, by
way of Motion to Recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer from Plaintiff's cas, and the Court
having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and for good and just cause shown;
gh
IT IS ON THIS day of. November 2019
ORDERED Plaintiffs motion to recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer is DENIED.
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties within /
days of the date hereof.
(
vn)
2
JO if DJO’DWYER, JS.C.
Lo
SEE RIDER ATTACHED
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg2of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627
KAETZ V. PARAMUS DODGE INC,
Docket No. BER-L-8734-18
Rider to the Orders dated November 8, 2019
THIS MATTER has been brought before the Court by way of motion filed by of plaintiff
William Kaetz, pro se, seeking to recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer under R. 1:21-1(g).
Plaintiff requests that Judge O’ Dwyer be “disqualified, recused, from Plaintiff's case and from the
bench because he being a Fascist Communist Democratic Socialist he is unqualified to perform
legal duties he swore to do in his Oath of Office, and there is a conflict of interest between Fascist
Communist Democratic Socialism and the Constitutional Republic that is guaranteed in our U.S.
Constitution and with [P]laintiff's USA nationality, there is a lack of impartiality.” (Pl. Motion of
Recusal at 10).
Statement of Facts
On July 29; 2019, Defendant County of Bergen filed a motion to dismiss. On August 30,
2019, in an Order and Rider the Court dismissed Defendant County of Bergen. Plaintiff filed
motions on September 3, 2019 and September 6, 2019 to correct a clerical mistake under R: 1:13-
1. Plaintiff filed a motion on September 10,2019 to Amend the August 30, 2019 Order dismissing
the County Defendants. On September 27, 2019, the Court denied the September 3, September 6,
and September 10 motions, The Court reasoned, “Movant failed to meet requirements for relief
under Rule 4-49-2.” On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff hand delivered a letter to the Court requesting
clarification of the September 27, 2019 orders. The Court did not respond to Plaintiff's letter.
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg3o0f5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627
Analysi
The decision to recuse rests within the judge's sound discretion and will only be reviewed
for an abuse of that discretion. State vy. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34, 45 (2010). Judicial Cannon 3(1)(a)
requires a judge "disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality
might reasonably be questioned," including instances where he or she "has a personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party or . has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding." Further, the Court Rules require a judge's disqualification on his or
her own motion when the judge "has given an opinion upon a matter in question in the action," R.
1:12-1(d), or “when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing
and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so," R. 1:12-1(g).
Accordingly, the fundamental showing warranting disqualification is “prejudice or
potential bias." State v. Marshall, 148 NJ. 89, 276 (1997). A movant seeking a judge's recusal
must present a true and specific factual basis supporting the request, already known to the court.
Id. A judge is not required to withdraw based on nothing more than mere suggestion or innuendo.
Chandok vy. Chandok, 406 N.J. Super. 595, 603 (App. Div. 2009), certif, denied, 200 N.J. 207
(2009). More important, the fulfillment of judicial duties by presiding over other proceedings
cannot serve as the basis for disqualification absent a showing the judge exhibited bias, prejudice,
or a personal or private interest in the matter. State v. Walker, 33 N.J. 580, 592 (1960).
Judges may not "err on the side of caution and recuse themselves unless there is a true basis
that requires disqualification." Johnson v. Johnson, 204 N.J. 529, 551 (2010). A judge's duty to
sit where appropriate is as strong as the duty to disqualify oneself where sitting is inappropriate.
Id.; Hundred E. Credit Corp. v. Eric Schuster Corp., 212 N.J. Super. 350, 358 (App. Div. 1986)
("It is not only unnecessary for a judge to withdraw from a case upon a mere suggestion that he is
Page 2 of 4
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg4of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627
disqualified: it is improper for him to do so unless the alleged cause of recusal is known by him to
exist or is shown to be true in fact.").
Motions for disqualification "are entrusted to the sound discretion of the [trial] judge."
State vy. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34, 45 (2010) (citing Panitch v. Panitch, 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66, 71
(App. Div. 2001)). Applying these standards to the facts of this case, this Court denies Plaintiff's
motion for recusal.
Plaintiff contends on Judge O’Dwyer’s August 30, 2019 Order that Judge O’Dwyer “used
the County’s Defendants’ perverted and prejudice statements to justify his Order that clearly
Biased the Plaintiff.” (P1. Motion of Recusal at 4). The Court took all moving papers and oral
testimony into consideration when ruling on the dismissal of Defendant County of Bergen. Based
on the discretion given to the trial judge to consider the evidence, the Court acted appropriately
and did not rule based on bias. See Marshall, 148 N.J. at 276.
Plaintiff filed several motions for reconsideration due to clerical error. A motion for
reconsideration must contain a statement of controlling decisions which counsel believes the court
has overlooked. See Lahue v. Pio Costa, 263 N.J. Super. 575, 598 (App. Div. 1993). “A litigant
should not seek reconsideration merely because of dissatisfaction with a decision of the court.”
D’Atria v. D’ Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). A motion for reconsideration must
contain a statement of controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. See
Lahue_v. Pio Costa, 263 N.J. Super. 575, 598 (App. Div. 1993). Plaintiff motion for
reconsideration were denied based on Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate controlling decisions
overlooked on any other basis permitted under R. 4:49-2. After receiving the orders, Plaintiff
asked for clarification. The Court did not respond to Plaintiffs letter since the communication
was an ex parte communication. Judicial Cannon 3.8 (“judge shall not initiate or consider ex parte
Page 3 of 4
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg5of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627
or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.”). Ex parte
communications are forbidden. Further, the Court is not required to respond to a party unless there
is a pleading or motion in front of the Court. See Goldfarb v. Solimine, 460 N.J. Super. 22 (App.
Div. 2019). Plaintiffs communication concerning the clarification of the September 27, 2019 was
not a motion or pleading. By not responding to Plaintiff's ex parte communication, Plaintiff was
not biased in any way.
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for recusal is denied since Plaintiff points to no other facts
that support a claim bias.
SO ORDERED this__8" _ day of NOVEMBER, 2019.
if”
=z
JOHN "DWYER, J.S8.C
ace
Page 4 of 4
Preview
BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pglof5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627 FILED NOV 98 2019 JOHN D, O'DWYER, 1.5.6. HON. JOHN D. O’DWYER, J.S.C. BERGEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE 10 MAIN STREET, ROOM 324 HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601 (201) 527-2645 Order Prepared by the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY WILLIAM F. KAETZ, LAW DIVISION: BERGEN COUNTY Docket No.: BER-L-8734-18 Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action PARAMUS DODGE, INC., NEW JERSEY ORDER. DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PAU R. RODRIGUEZ, BERGEN COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS, ALLEN GAILES, Defendants. THIS MATTER having been brought to the Court by Plaintiff William Kaetz, pro se, by way of Motion to Recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer from Plaintiff's cas, and the Court having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and for good and just cause shown; gh IT IS ON THIS day of. November 2019 ORDERED Plaintiffs motion to recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer is DENIED. ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served upon all parties within / days of the date hereof. ( vn) 2 JO if DJO’DWYER, JS.C. Lo SEE RIDER ATTACHED BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg2of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627 KAETZ V. PARAMUS DODGE INC, Docket No. BER-L-8734-18 Rider to the Orders dated November 8, 2019 THIS MATTER has been brought before the Court by way of motion filed by of plaintiff William Kaetz, pro se, seeking to recuse the Honorable John O’Dwyer under R. 1:21-1(g). Plaintiff requests that Judge O’ Dwyer be “disqualified, recused, from Plaintiff's case and from the bench because he being a Fascist Communist Democratic Socialist he is unqualified to perform legal duties he swore to do in his Oath of Office, and there is a conflict of interest between Fascist Communist Democratic Socialism and the Constitutional Republic that is guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution and with [P]laintiff's USA nationality, there is a lack of impartiality.” (Pl. Motion of Recusal at 10). Statement of Facts On July 29; 2019, Defendant County of Bergen filed a motion to dismiss. On August 30, 2019, in an Order and Rider the Court dismissed Defendant County of Bergen. Plaintiff filed motions on September 3, 2019 and September 6, 2019 to correct a clerical mistake under R: 1:13- 1. Plaintiff filed a motion on September 10,2019 to Amend the August 30, 2019 Order dismissing the County Defendants. On September 27, 2019, the Court denied the September 3, September 6, and September 10 motions, The Court reasoned, “Movant failed to meet requirements for relief under Rule 4-49-2.” On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff hand delivered a letter to the Court requesting clarification of the September 27, 2019 orders. The Court did not respond to Plaintiff's letter. BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg3o0f5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627 Analysi The decision to recuse rests within the judge's sound discretion and will only be reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. State vy. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34, 45 (2010). Judicial Cannon 3(1)(a) requires a judge "disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," including instances where he or she "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or . has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Further, the Court Rules require a judge's disqualification on his or her own motion when the judge "has given an opinion upon a matter in question in the action," R. 1:12-1(d), or “when there is any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so," R. 1:12-1(g). Accordingly, the fundamental showing warranting disqualification is “prejudice or potential bias." State v. Marshall, 148 NJ. 89, 276 (1997). A movant seeking a judge's recusal must present a true and specific factual basis supporting the request, already known to the court. Id. A judge is not required to withdraw based on nothing more than mere suggestion or innuendo. Chandok vy. Chandok, 406 N.J. Super. 595, 603 (App. Div. 2009), certif, denied, 200 N.J. 207 (2009). More important, the fulfillment of judicial duties by presiding over other proceedings cannot serve as the basis for disqualification absent a showing the judge exhibited bias, prejudice, or a personal or private interest in the matter. State v. Walker, 33 N.J. 580, 592 (1960). Judges may not "err on the side of caution and recuse themselves unless there is a true basis that requires disqualification." Johnson v. Johnson, 204 N.J. 529, 551 (2010). A judge's duty to sit where appropriate is as strong as the duty to disqualify oneself where sitting is inappropriate. Id.; Hundred E. Credit Corp. v. Eric Schuster Corp., 212 N.J. Super. 350, 358 (App. Div. 1986) ("It is not only unnecessary for a judge to withdraw from a case upon a mere suggestion that he is Page 2 of 4 BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg4of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627 disqualified: it is improper for him to do so unless the alleged cause of recusal is known by him to exist or is shown to be true in fact."). Motions for disqualification "are entrusted to the sound discretion of the [trial] judge." State vy. McCabe, 201 N.J. 34, 45 (2010) (citing Panitch v. Panitch, 339 N.J. Super. 63, 66, 71 (App. Div. 2001)). Applying these standards to the facts of this case, this Court denies Plaintiff's motion for recusal. Plaintiff contends on Judge O’Dwyer’s August 30, 2019 Order that Judge O’Dwyer “used the County’s Defendants’ perverted and prejudice statements to justify his Order that clearly Biased the Plaintiff.” (P1. Motion of Recusal at 4). The Court took all moving papers and oral testimony into consideration when ruling on the dismissal of Defendant County of Bergen. Based on the discretion given to the trial judge to consider the evidence, the Court acted appropriately and did not rule based on bias. See Marshall, 148 N.J. at 276. Plaintiff filed several motions for reconsideration due to clerical error. A motion for reconsideration must contain a statement of controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. See Lahue v. Pio Costa, 263 N.J. Super. 575, 598 (App. Div. 1993). “A litigant should not seek reconsideration merely because of dissatisfaction with a decision of the court.” D’Atria v. D’ Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). A motion for reconsideration must contain a statement of controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked. See Lahue_v. Pio Costa, 263 N.J. Super. 575, 598 (App. Div. 1993). Plaintiff motion for reconsideration were denied based on Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate controlling decisions overlooked on any other basis permitted under R. 4:49-2. After receiving the orders, Plaintiff asked for clarification. The Court did not respond to Plaintiffs letter since the communication was an ex parte communication. Judicial Cannon 3.8 (“judge shall not initiate or consider ex parte Page 3 of 4 BER L 008734-18 11/08/2019 Pg5of5 Trans ID: LCV20192082627 or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.”). Ex parte communications are forbidden. Further, the Court is not required to respond to a party unless there is a pleading or motion in front of the Court. See Goldfarb v. Solimine, 460 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2019). Plaintiffs communication concerning the clarification of the September 27, 2019 was not a motion or pleading. By not responding to Plaintiff's ex parte communication, Plaintiff was not biased in any way. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for recusal is denied since Plaintiff points to no other facts that support a claim bias. SO ORDERED this__8" _ day of NOVEMBER, 2019. if” =z JOHN "DWYER, J.S8.C ace Page 4 of 4