Nguyen v. Einhorn

Full title: JACQUELINE NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARBARA EINHORN…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jan 5, 2012

DOCKET NO. A-1781-10T2 (App. Div. Jan. 5, 2012)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-1781-10T2

01-05-2012

JACQUELINE NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARBARA EINHORN, Defendant-Respondent.

Jacqueline Nguyen, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges Fisher and Baxter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC-6820-09.

Jacqueline Nguyen, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM

In this appeal, plaintiff seeks our review of the October 15, 2010 trial court order, which dismissed plaintiff's professional negligence complaint due to her failure to serve an affidavit of merit. Plaintiff groups her arguments under the following single point in her appeal brief:

CLAIMANT'S LEAVING LOWER COURT FOR PURSUING MY RELIEFS, LIVES, VALUABLE DAMAGES AS THERE
ARE TONS OF INTELLIGENT INFORMATION AS MATERIAL WITNESSES THAT CONNECTING TO MY LIFE, VICTIMS OF CRIMES, FATE AND FAITH OF THE VICTIMS UPON THE DEFENDANT(S), HAVING MOTIVES AS SUCH FATAL IMPACTS ON A PERSON AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTE A GOOD CAUSE, AND, THEREFORE, SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM THE RELIEFS.

We find insufficient merit in plaintiff's arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

We add only that plaintiff failed to serve an affidavit of merit and has not demonstrated a valid reason for being excused from the requirement of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27, that an affidavit of merit be served within sixty days of the filing of an answer. Accordingly, the trial judge correctly dismissed the complaint. And, to the extent other arguments may be detected in plaintiff's confusing brief, we have been unable to discern or understand them and are, therefore, constrained to conclude that any other such additional arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. See, e.g., Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177-78 (App. Div. 2002).

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing

is a true copy of the original on

file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION