NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1771-18T4 CITIBANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. SHERRY DEMETRO, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SLATER, TENAGLIA, FRITZ & HUNT, PA, Third-Party Defendant- Respondent. _____________________________ Argued telephonically June 2, 2020 – Decided July 16, 2020 Before Judges Yannotti, Hoffman and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, Docket No. DC-000268- 15. Christopher Bruschi argued the cause for appellant. Robert B. Hille argued the cause for respondent (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP, attorneys; Robert B. Hille, of counsel; John W. Kaveney and Parampreet Singh, on the brief). PER CURIAM On March 3, 2015, Slater, Tenaglia, Fritz & Hunt (Slater Tenaglia) filed suit in the Special Civil Part on behalf of Citibank, N.A. against Sherry Demetro, after she failed to make certain credit card payments. Along with her answer, Demetro filed a third-party complaint against Slater Tenaglia, alleging the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Act1 (the Act). Specifically, Demetro alleged that Slater Tenaglia violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)(b), by filing a complaint against Demetro following receipt of a timely dispute of the debt, but prior to mailing verification of the debt. On September 18, 2015, the Special Civil Part granted Slater Tenaglia's motion to dismiss Demetro's third-party complaint, notwithstanding conflicting evidence regarding the timing of the mailing of the debt verification. Demetro appealed and we reversed, finding the trial court allowed Slater Tenaglia to rely on 1 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p. A-1771-18T4 2 an inadequate certification regarding the date it filed its collection action. Citibank, N.A. v. Demetro, No. A-1317-15 (App. Div. Oct. 2, 2017) (Slip op. at 5-6). On remand, Slater Tenaglia extended an offer of judgment of $3000, exclusive of attorney's fees. Demetro accepted the offer. Pursuant to the Act, Demetro then filed a motion seeking attorney's fees and costs, requesting a total of $82,144.27. On November 9, 2018, the motion judge entered an order awarding Demetro $17,500 in attorney's fees, plus $551.34 in costs. Thereafter, Demetro filed three additional motions: to tax fees, for supplemental attorney's fees, and for sanctions. The trial court denied all three motions in separate orders entered on April 22, 2019. This appeal followed. We affirm. I On December 29, 2014, Slater Tenaglia sent a debt collection letter to Demetro on behalf of Citibank. On January 12, 2015, Demetro contested the debt, demanded verification of the debt, and instructed Slater Tenaglia to cease collection efforts until it mailed the debt verification, in accordance with 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692(g). On January 20, 2015, Slater Tenaglia received documents purporting to verify Demetro's debt; however, the firm did not mail the debt verification to Demetro until March 3, 2015, at the earliest. Slater ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals