KATHARINE LAI VS. BARBARA LANGBERTÂ (L-3586-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2104-15T3

Katharine Lai (pro se) is principal of Fantastic Realty, which leased property to Dr. Carl Langbert; Langbert stopped paying rent in Jan. 2011.
Langbert retained attorney Shoshana Schiff (and her law firm, Trenk DiPasquale, Della Fera & Sodono, P.C.) for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy; Lai alleged she asked Schiff to remove her from Langbert's creditor list and Schiff refused.
Lai's complaint alleged discrimination (based on age, disability, and Chinese ancestry) and negligence, among other claims, alleging Schiff refused to remove her as a creditor and refused to provide the debtor's asset listing.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim; the trial court granted the motion, finding the complaint conclusory and lacking factual basis, and denied reconsideration.
Lai appealed the dismissal and the denial of reconsideration; the Appellate Division affirmed both orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint stated a claim of discrimination under federal/state law	Lai contended Schiff refused to remove her from the creditor list because she is elderly, disabled, and Chinese	Schiff (and firm) argued the complaint lacked factual allegations to support discrimination claims	Dismissed: allegations were conclusory and insufficient to plead discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981/§ 1983 or the NJ LAD
Whether the complaint stated a negligence claim against the Firm	Lai alleged negligence related to Schiff's conduct in the bankruptcy	Firm argued it did not represent Lai and owed no duty to her	Dismissed: no attorney-client relationship or duty to support negligence claim
Whether the trial court erred in granting a Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal	Lai argued the pleadings and procedural history showed discriminatory intent and factual basis	Defendants argued pleadings lacked factual detail and were conclusory, meriting dismissal	Affirmed: court properly applied liberal pleading review and found no factual basis to state a claim
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration	Lai claimed the court overlooked controlling law and that other actions (e.g., complaint about the motion judge) showed error	Defendants maintained there was no overlooked controlling law or misapplication	Denied: Lai failed to show the court overlooked controlling decisions or misapplied law

Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissals are disfavored and should be granted only in rare cases; complaints are construed liberally)
Leon v. Rite Aid Corp., 340 N.J. Super. 462 (App. Div. 2001) (courts must search complaints in depth and liberally for a viable cause of action and permit amendment where appropriate)
Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 2005) (pleading sufficiency focuses on legal adequacy of alleged facts; appellate review is de novo)
Scheidt v. DRS Technologies, Inc., 424 N.J. Super. 188 (App. Div. 2012) (affirming dismissal where complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support causes of action)