DENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATES SOUTH JERSEY, PA v. RRI GIBBSBORO, LLC (L-3993-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0320-21
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Dental Health Associates South Jersey, PG Dental Management II, and Dr. Amish Patel) sued RRI Gibbsboro, Scott and Todd Singer, and related parties after alleging they purchased dental practices and were locked out of a Clementon office, with equipment and patient records wrongfully converted; they sought injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs retained Archer & Greiner and attorney Kerri Chewning; the verified complaints quoted and relied on an unrelated 2015 New York decision against the Singer brothers, describing that decision as "strikingly similar."
- Anthony D. Dougherty, who had represented the Singers in the New York litigation from 2015–2017, joined Archer in January 2021; defendants argued Dougherty’s prior work created a conflict and moved to disqualify Archer.
- The trial judge granted disqualification, finding (under RPC 1.10/1.9) the matters were substantially related and that plaintiffs were judicially/equitably estopped by their complaint language; the judge concluded Dougherty possessed confidential information harmful to defendants.
- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding the motion judge failed to perform the fact-sensitive Trupos analysis required under RPC 1.9, did not identify the confidential information at issue, and improperly relied on estoppel; the court directed further factfinding and, if necessary, discovery or a plenary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Archer must be disqualified under RPC 1.9/1.10 because Dougherty formerly represented the Singers | Disqualification unwarranted: defendants failed to meet burden; Dougherty’s prior work is not substantially related; Chewning received no confidences and the complaint language predates Dougherty joining Archer | Dougherty obtained confidential info from prior representation; his presence at Archer creates imputed conflict; plaintiffs’ complaint admits similarity | Reversed — judge did not apply the required Trupos fact-specific test; remand for factfinding; disqualification not affirmed on this record |
| Whether the New York case is "substantially related" to this litigation under Trupos | Not substantially related: different parties, claims, law, jurisdiction, and causes of action (restrictive covenants vs. lease/access/conversion/discrimination) | Substantially related: similar defenses/strategies; plaintiffs’ own complaint calls the cases "strikingly similar" | Trial judge failed to analyze Trupos factors; record lacks findings; remand for focused analysis of substantial relation |
| Whether plaintiffs are judicially or equitably estopped by their complaint to deny similarity | Judicial estoppel inapplicable: plaintiffs were not parties in the NY case and there was no final adjudication; equitable estoppel unsupported because no detrimental reliance | Complaint’s wording constitutes an admission of similarity and warrants estoppel | Judicial estoppel inapplicable; equitable estoppel not supported by the record; judge erred to rely on estoppel without factual support |
| Appropriate procedure when the record is undeveloped (discovery/hearing) | If facts insufficient, trial court must allow discovery and/or hold plenary hearing before disqualification | Conflict is clear from complaint and Dougherty’s prior representation; further process unnecessary | Appellate court: if record insufficient, trial court should order discovery and, if needed, a plenary hearing before deciding disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Atlantic City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447 (N.J. 2010) (establishes two-part test for "substantially related" under RPC 1.9)
- Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201 (N.J. 1988) (disqualification is a harsh remedy requiring painstaking factual analysis)
- Reardon v. Marlayne Inc., 83 N.J. 460 (N.J. 1980) (counsels careful, fact-sensitive inquiry before disqualification)
- Twenty-First Century Rail Corp. v. N.J. Transit Corp., 210 N.J. 264 (N.J. 2012) (focuses inquiry on identifying particular confidences revealed in prior representation)
- O Builders & Assocs., Inc. v. Yuna Corp. of N.J., 206 N.J. 109 (N.J. 2011) (requires more than bald assertions to show former counsel conveyed confidential information)
- Cavallaro v. Jamco Prop. Mgmt., 334 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2000) (disqualification is a remedy to be used sparingly)