NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-4946-18 ROBERT J. TRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THETA HOLDING COMPANY, L.P., EUROPEAN METAL GROUP, and ARMANDO PEÑA, individually and t/a EUROPEAN METAL GROUP, Defendants, and THETA HOLDING COMPANY, L.P., Third-Party Plaintiff- Respondent, v. LUIS PEÑA, Third-Party Defendant. _____________________________ SCARINCI & HOLLENBECK, LLC, Respondent. _____________________________ Argued September 27, 2021 – Decided October 19, 2021 Before Judges Vernoia and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-9027-17. Robert J. Triffin, appellant, argued the cause pro se. Robert E. Levy argued the cause for respondent (Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys; Peter R. Yarem, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Robert J. Triffin, an attorney, appeals from a March 1, 2019 order granting defendant Theta Holding Company, LP (Theta) summary judgment on his claim that Theta, as drawer of a $15,000 check made payable to defendant European Metal Group (EMG), is obligated to honor the check under N.J.S.A. 12A:3-414. The check was first presented to 144 Enterprises, LLC, trading as City Check Cashing, and dishonored because Theta stopped payment on the check. Plaintiff also appeals from a May 25, 2019 order directing him to pay $5,262.50 in Rule 1:4-8 sanctions for the counsel fees Theta incurred with its A-4946-18 2 counsel Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC (the law firm) opposing plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the February 5 and 21, 2018 orders denying his motions to quash deposition subpoenas and a subpoena duces tecum. We affirm both orders.1 I. The facts are derived from evidence submitted by the parties in support of, and in opposition to, the summary judgment motion, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. H.C. Equities, LP v. Cnty. of Union, 247 N.J. 366, 380 (2021). In 2015, Theta hired EMG to "perform construction services." On Ju ne 17, 2016, Theta issued a $15,000 check to EMG, which was ostensibly left in a stolen truck. On June 21, 2016, defendant Luis Peña,2 a driver for EMG, 1 At oral argument before us, plaintiff raised the issue of standing to challenge a statute, relying on Crusco v. Oakland Care Ctr., Inc., 305 N.J. Super. 605 (App. Div. 1997). In Crusco, we considered the issue of "whether plaintiff may [have] base[d] a wrongful discharge claim upon the provision in the Ombudsman Act prohibiting retaliatory acts, N.J.S.A. 52:27G-14(a)." Id. at 614. We held it was "abundantly clear" there was "no private cause of action for wrongful discharge under the Ombudsman Act" because the plaintiff was not part of the class that the statute was intended to benefit, and there was no evidence the Legislature intended to create a private cause of action under …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals