SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1510-17T4

LEONARD MAYWEATHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN ODORISIO and

MANHEIM AUCTION INC.,1

Defendants-Respondents.

Argued September 17, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-2783-15.

Leonard Mayweather, appellant, argued the cause pro 

se.

Anthony E. Bush argued the cause for respondents

(Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, attorneys; 

Anthony E. Bush, of counsel and on the brief; Ian M.

Oakley, on the brief).

1

 Manheim Remarketing, Inc., d/b/a Manheim New Jersey, improperly plead 

as Manheim Auction Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 3, 2019
2

A-1510-17T4

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Leonard Mayweather appeals from a summary judgment 

dismissing his complaint against defendants John Odorisio and Manheim New 

Jersey alleging the auction house's dealings with him "showed racist 

characteristics." Because the material facts are not in dispute and defendants

are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

The essential facts are few and easily summarized. Defendant Manheim 

operates a wholesale auto auction. Odorisio is an assistant general manager. 

The auction is not open to the public; it caters only to licensed car dealers, 

finance companies and leasing entities registered with a third-party vendor, 

Auction Access. 

Plaintiff formerly worked for a used car dealership authorized to transact 

business at Manheim. In that representative capacity, plaintiff sold a car 

through Manheim the buyer claimed was flood damaged. Following 

arbitration of the claim, Manheim returned the funds to the buyer and looked 

to plaintiff and his employer for reimbursement of its $1550 loss. Plaintiff's 

employer did not make good on the loss.

A few months later, plaintiff appeared at a Manheim auction without a 

bidder's badge and was asked to leave by Odorisio. Odorisio advised plaintiff 
3

A-1510-17T4

he could not register as an authorized representative of another dealership until 

the $1550 loss was satisfied. Although plaintiff later labeled this demand as 

"extortion," he entered into a written agreement to repay the loss, which he 

did, in full, several weeks later. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint in the Law Division alleging he 

was forced to pay a debt to Manheim owed by his former employer in order to 

register as a buyer for another licensed dealership. Plaintiff claimed he should 

not have been held responsible for his former employer's debt in order to 

continue to do business at Manheim; that he was not treated the same as other 

agents similarly situated; and the reason for the disparate treatment was 

racism. 

Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, 

contending plaintiff had no proof of any discriminatory treatment by 

defendants, and that his allegations were based only on his subjective 

perceptions of his interactions with Odorisio. Plaintiff opposed the motion,

contending because he was not legally responsible for the debt of his former 

employer, defendants' actions toward him in forcing repayment were not legal 

but personal, and a jury should decide why Odorisio and Manheim took those 

personal actions, which plaintiff contended were racially motivated. Plaintiff 
4

A-1510-17T4

also contended the motion should not be heard because it was not brought 

thirty days before the first trial listing, but was only filed after plaintiff, in 

good faith, agreed to an adjournment to accommodate defendants' counsel's

schedule.

2

After hearing argument, the trial court granted defendants' motion, 

finding plaintiff had failed to allege any facts demonstrating he was treated 

differently from other authorized agents on account of his race. The judge 

found plaintiff's "subjective belief of racism by Italian-Americans against 

African-Americans," and his belief that "Odorisio would have not tried to 

collect the debt owed by [plaintiff's former employer] had [plaintiff] been 

Caucasian," do not constitute "facts" necessary to support his allegations under 

the Law against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49.

Plaintiff appeals, reprising the arguments he made in opposition to the 

motion. We agree with the trial court that summary judgment was properly 

granted. 

2

 Although we can understand plaintiff's objection to the timing of the 

summary judgment motion, coming as it did after plaintiff agreed to an 

adjournment of the trial date to accommodate defendants' counsel's schedule, 

the motion was made returnable in accordance with Rule 4:46-1. Further, 

there is no suggestion that defense counsel sought the adjournment in order to 

file the motion. Accordingly, the timing of the motion provides no basis for 

reversal. 
5

A-1510-17T4

Plaintiff did not assert, much less prove, that Manheim's auction is a 

public accommodation under N.J.S.A. 10:5-5; see Dale v. Boy Scouts of Am., 

160 N.J. 562, 589-90 (1999) (addressing public accommodations under the 

LAD), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Moreover, 

plaintiff could point to nothing in the record to establish he was treated 

differently from any other authorized agent at Manheim or that his race played 

any role in the way in which he was treated. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. 

Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (discussing the parties' burdens on 

summary judgment). Plaintiff's subjective belief that Odorisio held racist 

views because of his ethnic background and would not have attempted to 

collect the debt owed by plaintiff's former employer from plaintiff had plaintiff 

been white, is insufficient to support an LAD claim. See, e.g., Morris v. T.D. 

Bank, 454 N.J. Super. 203, 213 (App. Div. 2018) (holding plaintiff's 

supposition that bank's employee was racially motivated, without more, was 

insufficient to support his LAD claim). 

Affirmed.