SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, OCEAN COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION
MANSOUR S. MANSOUR §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Docket No. L00087-20
§
GEMINI RESTORATION, INC.; RAMESH § PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
“BENNY” BENIMADHO, R. BENIMADHO § SUMMARY JUDGMENT
& SON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, §
INC.; AND STAN PALAKA, TOP NOTCH §
CLIMATE CONTROL, LLC. §
Defendants. §
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
You are notified that on the ____ day of _____________________, 2022, at _________ (am/pm), or as soon thereafter as the Plaintiff can be heard, in Courtroom ____ of the above court, the Plaintiff will bring on for hearing his Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons stated in the attached Motion.
Dated this ____ day of January, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Mansour S. Mansour
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, OCEAN COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION
MANSOUR S. MANSOUR §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Docket No. L00087-20
§
GEMINI RESTORATION, INC.; RAMESH § PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
“BENNY” BENIMADHO, R. BENIMADHO § SUMMARY JUDGMENT
& SON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, §
INC.; STAN PALAKA; and TOP NOTCH §
CLIMATE CONTROL, LLC. §
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
The material facts of this case are as follows:
- Around August 2014, the main floor of Plaintiff’s property began flooding and caused serious damage to the main floor and the ground underneath.
- Plaintiff informed his insurance provider who accepted the claim and recommended some companies to Plaintiff which could do repairs to Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff chose Defendant Gemini Restoration to conduct the repairs.
- Defendants Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractotrs, and Stan Palaka were hired by Gemini Restoration to conduct repairs on Plaintiff’s property.
- Ramesh Benimadho and R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors did the electrical work, Stan Palaka of Top Notch Climate Control handled the bathroom and plumbing which included installing a new shower.
- On December 27, 2017, a fire broke out from underneath the property and caused extensive damage to Plaintiff’s property. Investigations into the cause of the fire were conducted by the Stafford Township Police Department, Ocean County Fire Marshal’s Office, Ocean County Sheriff’s Department Crime Scene Investigation Unit and the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office Arson Unit. No physical evidence was collected from the property.
- The following day after the fire, Plaintiff was interviewed by the Prosecutor.
- Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office Arson Unit released a report that was signed by Detective Christopher A. Bonner. The report revealed and concluded that the fire originated in the area above the shower in the basement’s bathroom. The report also ruled out arson as a cause of the fire and concluded that a failure in energized electrical wiring cannot be eliminated as the cause of the fire.
- Plaintiff contacted Gemini and informed them about the fire. Gemini Restoration asked Plaintiff to contact their insurance company, Selective Insurance Group Inc. Plaintiff recommended to Selective Insurance to send their own electrical expert to ascertain the cause of the fire but Selective Insurance declined.
Dated this ____ day of January, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Mansour S. Mansour
Plaintiff in pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, OCEAN COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION
MANSOUR S. MANSOUR §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Docket No. L00087-20
§
GEMINI RESTORATION, INC.; RAMESH § PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
“BENNY” BENIMADHO, R. BENIMADHO § SUMMARY JUDGMENT
& SON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, §
INC.; AND STAN PALAKA, TOP NOTCH §
CLIMATE CONTROL, LLC. §
Defendants. §
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW Mansour S. Mansour, Plaintiff, who moves for summary judgment on all the claims against Defendants in the Amended Complaint, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
- Rule 4:46-2 of Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey stipulates: “The motion for summary judgment shall be served with a brief and a separate statement of material facts with or without supporting affidavits. The statement of material facts shall set forth in separately numbered paragraphs a concise statement of each material fact as to which the movant contends there is no genuine issue together with a citation to the portion of the motion record establishing the fact or demonstrating that it is uncontroverted. The citation shall identify the document and shall specify the pages and paragraphs or lines thereof or the specific portions of exhibits relied on. A motion for summary judgment may be denied without prejudice for failure to file the required statement of material facts.”
- The statement of material facts is attached to this Motion in accordance with the foregoing rule.
- There’s no doubt as to any of the facts listed in Paragraphs 1-8 of the Statement of Material Facts.
- Clearly, Defendants conducted work on Plaintiff’s property without having the licenses to engage in the type of work they did. Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control implied that they were plumbing contractors and performed the duties of plumbing contractors without authorization from the State of New Jersey, contrary to N.J.S.A. 56:136.
- Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control did not complete a construction application or have a permit to perform plumbing work on Plaintiff’s property, contrary to N.J.A.C. 5:23.
- Defendants were negligent in conducting work on Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff contracted Gemini Restoration which hired Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors, Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control to perform work on Plaintiff’s property.
- “To sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) actual damages.” Townsend v. Pierre, 110 A. 3d 52 (2015), citing Polzo v. Cnty of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 584, 960 A. 2d 375 (2008).
- Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors, Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control owed Plaintiff duty of care to perform work in a manner that would ensure no damage to the property.
- “In determining whether a duty is to be imposed, courts must engage in rather complex analysis that weighs and balances several, related factors, including the nature of the underlying risk of harm, that is, its foreseeability and severity, the opportunity and ability to exercise care to prevent the harm, the comparative interests of, and the relationships between or among, the parties, and, ultimately, based on considerations of public policy and fairness, the societal interest in the proposed solution.” Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 439, 625 A.2d 1110 (1993).
- “Foreseeability of the risk of harm is the foundational element in the determination of whether duty exists.” Williamson v. Waldman, 150 N.J. 232, 239, 696 A.2d 14 (1997). “The ability to foresee injury to a potential plaintiff is crucial in determining whether a duty should be imposed.” Carter Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. EMAR Group, Inc., 135 N.J. 182, 194, 638 A.2d 1288 (1994).
- “Foreseeability as a component of a duty to exercise due care is based on the defendant’s knowledge of the risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis.” Weinberg v. Dinger¸ 106 N.J. 469, 484-85, 524 A.2d 366 (1987). “That knowledge may be an actual awareness of risk.” Carvalho v. Toll Bros. & Developers, 143 N.J. 565, 576-77, 675 A.2d 209 (1996).
- Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors, Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control all knew that failure to do their work on Plaintiff’s property properly would result in foreseeable harm to Plaintiff’s property. Despite that, Defendants still breached the duty of care they owed Plaintiff by failing to perform work properly, leading to the fire that caused extensive damage to Plaintiff’s property, rendering it uninhabitable.
- Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors, Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control breached the foregoing duty of care by failing to perform work in a manner that would ensure no damage to the property.
- Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control did not have authorization from the State of New Jersey or permits to conduct plumbing work on Plaintiff’s property but they still implied to Plaintiff that they were plumbing contractors and that they would perform plumbing work on Plaintiff’s property. In that regard, they should be held to a higher standard of work of a plumbing contractor. “We also reiterate that every motion for summary judgment requires the court, trial or appellate, to review the motion record against not only the elements of the cause of action, but also the evidential standard governing that cause of action.” Bhagat v. Bhagat, 84 A. 3d 583 (2014).
- “As a general rule, it is the causation element that is the most complex. There are different tests for determining proximate cause. For example, the traditional ‘but for’ test that applies in most negligence settings allows recovery only when the injury is one that would not have occurred but for the wrongful act.” Verdicchio v. Ricca, 843 A. 2d 1042 (2004). But for the negligence of Defendants, the damage to Plaintiff’s property would not have happened. If Defendants had done their work properly, there would have been no fire on that fateful night.
- A report released by Trident Engineering Associates, Inc. revealed as follows: “It is Trident’s strong opinion that the fire did start above the shower as this was the most burned area found in the home. If the shower light had been left on, it is possible that the wires removed from feeding the shower lamp may have shorted and arced. This, however, cannot be confirmed. There were no gas lines or heating oil fuels above the basement shower that would have provided a flammable fuel source. The only flammable materials above the shower were the wood floor trusses and the dining room floor material. The suspended ceiling material appears also to be flammable, and could have been ignited by arcing wires to the shower light fixture that were removed.” See Trident’s Report at Page 6. It is Defendants who conducted work on the basement shower that was the source of the fire. Defendants were the last persons to work on the basement shower. What they did was a complete renovation of the basement shower. Due to their failure to do their work properly, a fire broke out and razed down Plaintiff’s property.
- As a result of Defendants’ failure to perform work in a manner that would ensure no damage to Plaintiff’s property, a fire broke out from the area above the shower in the basement’s bathroom. The report released by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office Arson Unit failed to rule out failure in energized electrical wiring at the area above the shower in the basement’s bathroom as the cause of the fire.
- “The burden of proof must be carried by the presentation of competent credible evidence which proves material facts. It cannot be satisfied by conjecture, surmise or suspicion.” Long v. Landy, 35 N.J. 44, 54 (1961); Modla v. United States¸ 151 F. Supp. 198, 201(D.N.J. 1957).
- “The evidence must establish a chain of causation between plaintiff’s injury and conduct on the part of defendant. It is elementary that a party cannot recover on a theory of negligence unless that party presents some evidence tending to show that the act of negligence was the proximate cause of the party’s injuries.” Catto v. Schnepp, 121 N.J. Super. 506, 511 (App. Div.), aff’d o.b. 62 N.J. 20 (1972). Trident’s investigative report concluded in clear terms that the proximate cause of the fire was the arcing wires to the light fixture that were removed.
- It is Defendants Ramesh Benimadho, R. Benimadho & Son Electrical Contractors, Stan Palaka and Top Notch Climate Control, hired by Gemini Restoration who conducted repairs on the area above the shower in the basement’s bathroom. Therefore, Defendants are liable for negligence.
- As a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff became homeless as the property was uninhabitable. Plaintiff continues to be homeless.
- “We hold that when deciding a motion for summary judgment under Rule 4:46-2, the determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a material fact challenged requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidence materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration to the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 666 A. 2d 146 (1995).
- Upon the analysis of facts of this case as well as evidence presented by Plaintiff, a rational factfinder would not resolve this case in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff has met the motion for summary judgment standard which is proving that there is no genuine issue of any of the material facts attached.
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant him the following reliefs:
- Grant this Motion for Summary Judgment;
- Award Plaintiff all reliefs prayed for in his Amended Complaint;
- Award Plaintiff double the damages prayed for in his Amended Complaint;
- Award Plaintiff $350,000 from each Defendant as punitive damages;
- Award Plaintiff such equitable relief as may be available to Plaintiff; and
- Award Plaintiff such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
Dated this ____ day of January, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Mansour S. Mansour
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 )