PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Irina Kegeles appeals from the order of the Law Division dismissing her pro se complaint against defendant SDI Technologies Inc., pursuant to
On March 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant using the form "Civil Action-Complaint" made available to pro se litigants through the judiciary website.
In the next part of the form complaint plaintiff indicated defendant's address. Next, the form complaint has two pre-printed single-sentence paragraphs that state:
In the blank space provided, plaintiff described the harm as "[e]motional distress and psychological damage." Plaintiff thereafter signed and dated the complaint.
On June 7, 2013, defendant, represented by counsel, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under
Alternatively, defendant argued the complaint should have been dismissed and the matter remanded for mandatory arbitration. In support of this argument, defendant submitted the certification of Marcos Zalta, defendant's Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs, and General Counsel. He attested to the authenticity of a document attached to his certification entitled "Acknowledgement of an Agreement with SDI Technologies Inc. and KIDdesigns, Inc. Arbitration Policy." Zalta averred this agreement was signed by plaintiff on May 21, 2008, and compelled her to submit all claims and controversies arising out of her employment with defendant to arbitration, including allegations of workplace discrimination or harassment.
Plaintiff filed a written opposition to defendant's motion. Although plaintiff's submission was neither properly formatted as a certification nor supported by specific exhibits, she did provide a lengthy narrative of her work history with defendant. She worked as a part-time "bookkeeper" compensated on an hourly rate. She believed her level of education and history of above average performance entitled her to a fulltime position with higher pay and more meaningful responsibilities.
She also alleged that "[i]n [the] recent months" leading up to her decision to commence this legal action, defendant performed "improper and seemingly illegal actions toward its employees[.]" She described a "$40,000 accounting discrepancy," which she had allegedly discovered and reported to her managers, as an "intentional accounting maneuver performed by a company engaged in a seemingly illicit activity." It is important to emphasize that plaintiff submitted these statements to the motion judge in the form of a lengthy letter, not as a sworn affidavit or certification subject to perjury.
Judge Frank M. Ciuffani heard oral argument on defendant's motion on July 26, 2013. Plaintiff appeared pro se. The record reflects, however, that plaintiff's husband accompanied her. Judge Ciuffani permitted him to sit by plaintiff's side during oral argument. Judge Ciuffani addressed plaintiff directly and explained the nature of the proceedings. The transcript of the motion hearing reflects plaintiff and her husband both anticipated the motion hearing would be akin to a trial in which a judge and jury would hear her testimony and reach a verdict. Despite repeated attempts by Judge Ciuffani to explain the procedural posture of the case to plaintiff, she seemed unable or unwilling to forego the notion that this was not a trial.
At one point, Judge Ciuffani addressed plaintiff directly as follows:
Notwithstanding this clear, concise recitation of what she needed to do to compose a legally viable complaint, plaintiff again seemed resistant to embracing these straightforward requirements. Judge Ciuffani gave plaintiff until August 16, 2013 to submit an amended complaint. On August 15, 2013, plaintiff submitted the same pro se complaint form she used in filing her first complaint. This time, however, plaintiff attached a typed statement consisting of seven and one-half, single-spaced pages, restating the lengthy narrative she included in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss.
By order dated September 27, 2013, Judge Ciuffani granted defendant's motion and dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration which came for oral argument before Judge Ciuffani on November 8, 2013. The record of this motion hearing shows plaintiff remained unwilling to correct her pleading consistent with the requirements of due process Judge Ciuffani had previously explained to her. The record also shows that despite his lack of standing, Judge Ciuffani graciously permitted plaintiff's husband to address the court on behalf of his wife.
On appeal to this court, plaintiff argues Judge Ciuffani dismissed her amended complaint with prejudice "ignoring all the facts presented." She also claims that "because of Judge Ciuffani's decision" she was "subjected to assault on November 20, 2014, and eventually . . . lost [her] job."
We review a trial court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss a complaint under
Affirmed.