MICHAEL GASKILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ABEX CORPORATION, formerly American Brake and Shoe Company, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. individually and as successor to Allied Signal, Inc. and Aftermarket Brake and Friction Materials Division of Bendix Corporation, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents, and
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., BORG-WARNER CORPORATION c/o Burns International Services Corporation; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, MARTIN CHRYSLER, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MFG. NORTH AMERICA, and QUALITY AUTO, as successor in interest to Martin Auto Parts, Inc., Defendants.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued December 20, 2011.
Decided December 11, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Arnold C. Lakind , argued the cause for appellant (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C., and David M. Lipman (The Lipman Law Firm), of the Florida bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Mr. Lakind, Robert G. Stevens, Jr. , and Mr. Lipman, of counsel and on the brief).
Edward P. Abbot argued the cause for respondent Pneumo Abex LLC, as successor in interest to Abex Corporation (Smith Abbot, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Abbot, on the joint brief).
Ethan Stein argued the cause for respondent Honeywell International, Inc. f/k/a Allied Signal Inc., as successor in interest to the Bendix Corporation, (Gibbons, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Stein and Kim M. Catullo , on the joint brief).
José E. Gaitán (The Gaitán Group) of the Washington Bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondent Volkswagon of America, Inc. (Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin, LLC, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., and Mr. Gaitãn, attorneys; Michael B. Sena , Leslie T. Williams and Mr. Gaitán, on the joint brief).
Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, attorneys for respondent Ford Motor Company ( Kristen E. Dennison , on the joint brief).
Before Judges Messano, Yannotti and Kennedy.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from a May 7, 2010 order of the Law Division dismissing with prejudice his complaint for personal injury, as a consequence of plaintiff's pervasive lies during discovery and his efforts to subvert the discovery process. We affirm essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Ann G. McCormick in her thorough opinions from the bench.
I.
On March 6, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint in the...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
