Family Laws Opposition Sent

Bryan Atenza

Insert Date

Honorable Daniel R Lindemann, J.S.C.,
Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey
Union County Courthouse
2 Broad Street, 3 rd Floor, Old Annex
Elizabeth, NJ 07207

Dear Judge Lindemann,
RE: Response to Seiden Family Law’s Opposition Sent on April 26, 2022, (Seiden Family
Law, LLC v. Bryan Atenza, Docket No.: UNN-L -843-22)
On 03/29/2022, learned counsel for Seiden Family Law, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
“SFL”) served upon the court and Bryan Atenza a letter which constitutes an objection to Bryan
Atenza’s pleadings filed to transfer the above case to the Law Division and to dismiss SFL’s
Complaint. This letter is Bryan Atenza’s response to the statements made by SFL through its
learned counsel.
SFL alleges that Bryan has failed to provide proof to establish reasonable cause for
success at trial. In exercising his right to file a counterclaim in accordance with N.J. Ct. R. 4:7,
Bryan has to bring his counterclaim to the court with appropriate jurisdiction. It is clear under
N.J. Ct. R. 6:1-1(c) that the Special Civil Part of the Superior Court of New Jersey only has
jurisdiction in matters whose amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000. The amount in
controversy of Bryan’s counterclaim is $50,000. Bryan cannot provide proof of reasonable
success because this Court has no jurisdiction to hear his case. That is for the Law Division of
the Superior Court of New Jersey which has jurisdiction under N.J. Const., Art. VI, § 3(2) to
Bryan has raised no objection or claim in regard to the no-guarantee clause in the retainer
agreement. Bryan’s objections and claims are in regard to the fact that he issued express
instructions to Sheryl Seiden to file for parenting time and she filed an application for custody,
that Sheryl failed to settle the case despite express instructions from Bryan to do so, that Sheryl’s
conflict of interest prevented her from effectively representing Bryan, and that Bryan expressly

informed Sheryl that he would not be able to pursue the case any longer but Sheryl continued to
work on Bryan’s case. SFL has omitted the foregoing facts to mislead the court that there is no
wrongdoing on their end.
In Re Verni, 172 N.J. 315 (2002), an attorney was suspended for charging excessive fees
in three matters and knowingly making false statements to disciplinary authorities, and making a
divorce case appear more complicated than it was in order to justify a higher fee. Similarly,
Sheryl’s foregoing actions made Bryan’s divorce case more complicated than it needed to be.
She filed for custody instead of parenting time and even failed to settle with the adverse party as
instructed by Bryan. She also proceeded to bill Bryan for unauthorized work. Sheryl Siden
should be suspended for charging Bryan excessive fees and making his divorce case more
complicated than it needed to be.
“When a client employs an attorney, he has a right to presume, if the latter be silent on
the point, that he has no engagements, which interfere, in any degree, with his exclusive devotion
to the cause confided to him; that he has no interest, which may betray his judgment, or endanger
his fidelity.” In re Kamp, 40 N.J. 588, 595 (1963), quoting Williams v. Reed, 3 Mason 405, 418
(C.C. Maine 1824). Sheryl caused multiple adjournments of Bryan’s case so she could attend
retreats and was frequently out of court when Bryan’s case was ongoing. She failed to devote
herself to representing Bryan as an attorney is required to do.
Well settled is the principle that “the primary reason for discipline is not to punish the
attorney but to protect the public against members of the bar who are unworthy of their trust.” In
re Lunn, 118 N.J. 163, 167, 570 A.2d 940 (1990). Sheryl continues to advertise her services and
deceive the public with representations of litigation fatigue in order to convince vulnerable
clients to continue paying for her services. Sheryl’s actions demonstrate that she should not be in
a position to guide people through litigation or any other proceeding. She should be suspended to
protect members of the public from her.
Bryan would like to point out that SFL’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied on
In its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to the Law
Division, SFL avers that Bryan has failed to retain, let alone submit any affidavit of merit or
certification of an expert, there is no chance at trial for success on the merits. N.J. Rev. Stat. §
2A:53A-27 provides as follows: “In any action for damages for personal injuries, wrongful death

or property damage resulting from an alleged act of malpractice or negligence by a licensed
person in his profession or occupation, the plaintiff shall, within 60 days following the date of
filing of the answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each defendant with an affidavit
of an appropriate licensed person that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or
knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the
complaint, fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practices.”
As the Counter-Plaintiff, Bryan has 60 days from 04/25/2022, the date SFL filed its
Memorandum. Though disguised as a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Transfer to the Law Division, it suffices to be an Answer to Bryan’s Counterclaim
since it addresses the issues in Bryan’s Counterclaim.
SFL attempts to mislead this Court by stating that Bryan asserted no objection to the legal
bills that are part of this lawsuit. The foregoing allegation is false. Bryan raised an objection and
expressed that he was experiencing financial constraints, therefore he would not be able to
continue litigating. Instead of terminating proceedings as instructed by Bryan, SFL dismissed
Bryan’s instructions.
SFL also avers that there are no merits to Bryan’s alleged claims of malpractice, and
Bryan offers no evidence to support such claims. In the matter that SFL represented Bryan, the
opposing counsel included their former employee as Guardian ad Litem. SFL failed to note this
discrepancy. A reasonable attorney would have identified the unfair appointment made by the
opposing counsel, but the attorney working on the case went for vacation and still billed Bryan
without rectifying the unfair appointment.
“Where the claim predates the filing of the complaint or the counterclaim, the pleader is
in sole control. He can frame his affirmative claims as comprehensively as appropriate, R. 4:27-
1(a), and therefore can fairly be burdened by the preclusionary consequence of omission. The
assertion of a subsequently arising claim, however, requires the filing of a supplemental pleading
for which leave of court must be sought. […] And see R. 4:7-3.” Brown v. Brown, 506 A. 2d 29
Rule 4:7-3 provides thus: “A claim which either matured or was acquired by the pleader
after service of the pleading may, by leave of court, be presented as a counterclaim by
supplemental pleading.”

Bryan respectfully requests you to STRIKE the opposition sent by SFL on 4/25/2022,
GRANT his Motion for Transfer and ISSUE a declaration that this Special Civil Court has no
jurisdiction to hear Bryan’s counterclaim. Thank you for taking your time to read this letter.

Yours Sincerely,
Bryan Atenza,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff in pro per


At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )