SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3505-22 

DIXON MILLS CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

RGD HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, 

RMC MEZZANINE COMPANY, 

LLC, RMC GTIS DIXON, LLC, 

GOLDENTREE INSITE 72ND ST 

LLC, RMPC DIXON, LLC, BRUCE 

PETERSON, TIMOTHY M. JONES, 

and RMFL, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

ROBERT MARTIN COMPANY, 

LLC, PROSPECT CAPITAL 

GROUP, LLC, GREG BERGER, 

MARK DURNO, ROBIN STEINER, 

DAVID PARISIER, URS 

CORPORATION, d/b/a AECOM, 

THE SCHONBRAUN MCCANN 

GROUP LLP, RMR RESIDENTIAL 

REALTY, LLC, JP PROPERTY 

SERVICES, LLC, HAYDEN 

BUILDING MAINTENANCE 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-3505-22

CORP., LANE ENGINEERING 

CONSULTING, P.C., PUTNAM 

STEEL, INC., GROS ENTERPRISES, 

LLC, LINDEMON, WINCKELMANN, 

DEUPREE, MARTIN AND 

ASSOCIATES, P.C., PAREDIM 

PARTNERS, LLC, and AECOM, 

f/k/a URS CORPORATION, 

 Defendants-Respondents, 

and 

BARRY RITHOLZ, MATTHEW 

MCGRATH, PROPSECT 

PROPERTY GROUP, and FIRST 

GLASS SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________ 

URS CORPORATION, 

 Third-Party Plaintiff- 

 Respondent, 

v.

RMFL, LLC c/o ROBERT MARTIN 

CO. LLC and RMC GTIS DIXON LLC, 

 Third-Party Defendants- 

 Appellants. 

_______________________________ 

RMFL, LLC, 

 Third-Party Defendant/Fourth- 
3 A-3505-22

Party Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

PAREDIM PARTNERS, AECOM, 

UNION STONE CLEANING AND 

RESTORATION, INC., ZEPHYR 

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION, 

INC., ASCOLESE AND TODISCO 

DECORATING, INC., and FIVE 

STAR BUILDING PRODUCTS, 

 Fourth-Party Defendants- 

 Respondents. 

_______________________________ 

Submitted March 12, 2024 – Decided August 5, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-4277-16.

O'Toole Scrivo, LLC, attorneys for appellants RMFL,

LLC, RGD Holding Company, LLC, RMC Mezzanine 

Company, LLC, RMC GTIS Dixon, LLC, RMPC 

Dixon, LLC, Prospect Capital Group, LLC, Greg 

Berger, Bruce Peterson, and Timothy M. Jones (Steven 

A. Weiner, of counsel and on the briefs; Peter V. 

Koenig and Brian R. Griffin, on the briefs). 

Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys 

for appellant GoldenTree Insite 72nd St LLC, join in 

the briefs of appellants RGD Holding Company, LLC, 

RMC Mezzanine Company, LLC, RMC GTIS Dixon, 

LLC, RMPC Dixon, LLC, RMFL, LLC, Bruce 

Peterson, and Timothy M. Jones. 
4 A-3505-22

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, attorneys for 

respondent Dixon Mills Condominium Association, 

Inc. (Dennis A. Estis, of counsel and on the brief;

Stephanie G. Reckord, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 Defendants RMFL, LLC (RMFL), RGD Holding Company, LLC (RGD), 

RMC Mezzanine Company, LLC (Mezzanine), RMC GTIS Dixon, LLC (GTIS), 

GoldenTree Insite 72nd St LLC (GoldenTree), RMPC Dixon, LLC (RMPC), 

Bruce Peterson, and Timothy M. Jones appeal from the July 7, 2023 Law 

Division order denying their motions to dismiss and compel arbitration. We 

affirm. 

I 

In 2016, plaintiff Dixon Mills Condominium Association, Inc. sued 

defendants and other parties regarding the condominium conversion of The 

Residences at Dixon Mills (Dixon Mills) in Jersey City. Plaintiff is responsible 

for maintaining Dixon Mills' common and limited common elements and 

facilities. The twenty-count Law Division complaint alleged: breach of 

contract; breach of the implied warranties of good quality, workmanship, and 

fitness for ordinary purpose; intentional misrepresentation; negligent 

misrepresentation; violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 

56:8-1 to -20; failure to disclose Dixon Mills' "true physical and financial 
5 A-3505-22

condition"; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of 

fiduciary duty; violations of the budgetary reporting obligations set forth in 

N.J.A.C. 5:26-8.7; violations of the Planned Real Estate Development Full 

Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 to -56; civil conspiracy; and violations of 

federal and New Jersey antiracketeering statutes––Racketeer Influenced and 

Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1, -2, and -

7. The motion court (initial motion court) granted RGD, Robert Martin 

Company, LLC (Martin), Mezzanine, Greg Berger, and Jones's motion to 

dismiss and compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions in the purchase 

agreements that each buyer signed when the condominium units were purchased. 

We vacated the initial motion court's order, concluding the arbitration 

provisions bound only individual unit owners and nothing in the motion record 

showed plaintiff "clearly and unambiguously waived its right to sue and agreed 

to arbitrate" when bringing claims on its own behalf rather than on behalf of 

individual unit owners. Dixon Mills Condo. Ass'n v. RGD Holding Co., No. A3383-16 (slip op. at 7-9, 12-13) (App. Div. Feb. 28, 2018). We also declined to 

find plaintiff was the unit owners' agent, as the moving parties did not raise the 

issue before the initial motion court, and we observed the motion record 

contained no factual basis to make this finding. Id. at 14-15.
6 A-3505-22

We permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint "specifying the basis 

for its claims" and remanded for the initial motion court to determine whether 

plaintiff's claims each belonged to it or the individual unit owners. Id. at 16-17. 

On remand, the initial motion court determined the amended complaint alleged 

harm to plaintiff, as every count "specifically [sought] damages for allegations 

that focus [on] the physical structure o[f] the common elements or the limited 

common elements of the premises and not the specific unit . . . of any . . . specific 

unit owners." Accordingly, its order and written decision held all claims 

belonged to plaintiff and were not subject to arbitration. 

As discovery progressed over the next few years, plaintiff amended its 

complaint to name additional parties. RMFL, who was initially impleaded as a 

third-party defendant under the incorrect name "RMSL, LLC" and named as a 

direct defendant in plaintiff's third amended complaint, also impleaded several 

fourth-party defendants. The amendments and impleaders did not substantially 

alter the substance of plaintiff's claims, but merely added parties to the existing 

allegations or elaborated on a particular party's alleged harm to Dixon Mills' 

common elements. 

RMFL, which was not involved in the original motion, moved to dismiss 

and compel arbitration based on the purchase agreements. GoldenTree, Martin, 
7 A-3505-22

Mark Durno, Prospect Capital Group, LLC, RGD, RMPC, GTIS, Berger, and 

Jones joined RMFL's motions. RMFL argued it was not bound by our prior 

decision or the initial motion court's post-remand ruling because it became a 

party after the post-remand ruling was issued. 

On July 7, 2023, a different motion court denied RMFL's motions. 

Invoking the law of the case doctrine and citing Lawson v. Dewar, 468 N.J. 

Super. 128 (App. Div. 2021), the court explained in its oral decision that it was 

deferring to the initial motion court's post-remand ruling because plaintiff's 

amended pleadings did not raise different claims than? the initial motion court 

had deemed non-arbitrable. The court rejected RMFL's contention that plaintiff

was the individual unit owners' agent, pointing to our prior observation that the 

facts before us did not suggest an agency relationship, Dixon Mills Condo. 

Ass'n, slip op. at 15 n.8. The court noted RMFL conceded during oral argument

that subsequent discovery had not uncovered new evidence of an agency 

relationship. The court determined our decision was binding "whether or not 

RMFL was a party at that time." 

Defendants appealed. We stayed all proceedings before the motion court 

pending appeal. 
8 A-3505-22

II

 Before us, defendants contend the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to 

-38, subjects plaintiff to the arbitration provisions because plaintiff "assert[s] 

tort claims concerning the common elements and facilities of the development 

as if the claims were asserted directly by the unit owners individually," for the 

unit owners "are the true and only owners of the common elements." Defendants 

claim the law of the case doctrine does not preclude these arguments because: 

1) we did not address the Condominium Act or agency; 2) RMFL was not a party 

when we issued our prior decision; and 3) courts cannot cite our prior 

unpublished decision. Plaintiff counters that the motion court correctly relied 

on our decision and the initial motion court's post-remand ruling because the 

Condominium Act gives condominium associations exclusive standing to bring 

claims involving the condominium's common elements. We reject defendants' 

arguments because they belie the record and applicable legal principles. 

Buyers in a condominium acquire their "individual unit" and "a 

proportionate undivided interest in the condominium community's common 

elements," which are shared by all unit owners. Fox v. Kings Grant Maint. 

Ass'n, 167 N.J. 208, 219 (2001). Common elements include the condominium 

development's walkways, parking areas, roofs, and other "apparatus and 
9 A-3505-22

installations existing or intended for common use." N.J.S.A. 46:8B-3(d). 

Unlike the unit owners' exclusive ownership of their respective units, their 

shared rights to the common elements "cannot be partitioned" from each other. 

Jennings v. Borough of Highlands, 418 N.J. Super. 405, 420 (App. Div. 2011) 

(citing N.J.S.A. 46:8B-6). "Because of the shared nature of common elements, 

the Condominium Act" empowers condominium associations "to oversee and 

administer" the common elements on the unit owners' collective behalf. Ibid. 

Accordingly, condominium associations may "assert tort claims 

concerning the common elements and facilities of the development as if the 

claims were asserted directly by the unit owners individually." N.J.S.A. 46:8B16(a). Unit owners cannot bring such claims themselves because they cannot 

repair or change the common elements on their own without going through the 

condominium association. Belmont Condo. Ass'n v. Geibel, 432 N.J. Super. 52, 

72 (App. Div. 2013) (citing N.J.S.A. 46:8B-18). The condominium association 

is responsible for suing third parties who damage the common elements, 

"collect[ing] the funds when successful, and apply[ing] the proceeds to repair 

the property." Port Liberte Homeowners Ass'n v. Sordoni Constr. Co., 393 N.J. 

Super. 492, 503 (App. Div. 2007) (quoting Siller v. Hartz Mountain Assocs., 93 

N.J. 370, 377 (1983)).
10 A-3505-22

Applying our de novo review of the? arbitration provisions' validity, 

Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430, 445-46 (2014), we discern 

no basis to disturb the motion court's reliance on our prior decision and the initial 

motion court's post-remand ruling under the law of the case doctrine. The 

doctrine is "triggered when one court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a 

different and co-equal court on an identical issue." Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 

517, 539 (2011). 

 In our previous decision, we remanded for findings as to whether each 

claim in plaintiff's amended complaint belonged to it or the individual unit 

owners. Dixon Mills Condo. Ass'n, slip op. at 16-17. The initial motion court 

duly found that each claim was possessed by plaintiff because the claims 

"specifically [sought] damages for allegations that focus [on] the physical 

structure o[f] the common elements or the limited common elements of the 

premises and not the specific unit . . . of any . . . specific unit owners." As the 

substance of plaintiffs' claims remain unchanged, the subsequent motion court 

properly found no "substantially different evidence" warranted departure from 

the initial motion court's findings. See Tully v. Mirz, 457 N.J. Super. 114, 128 

(App. Div. 2018). 
11 A-3505-22

Our prior decision also observed there was no showing that plaintiff filed 

the complaint as the unit owners' agent. Dixon Mills Condo. Ass'n, slip op. at

15 n.8. Being unpublished, the decision was not binding precedent. Trinity 

Cemetery Ass'n v. Township of Wall, 170 N.J. 39, 48 (2001); R. 1:36-3. Yet, it 

is still binding against the parties in the underlying case. See Raymond v. N.J. 

State Parole Bd., 221 N.J. Super. 381, 384 n.1 (App. Div. 1987). Thus, we see 

no reversible error in the motion court's reliance on our prior reasoning when 

RMFL sought to repeat the same argument but, as it conceded, had no new 

evidence of an agency relationship between plaintiff and the unit owners. 

To the extent we have not addressed the parties' remaining arguments, it 

is because we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.