1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CECILIA TRIANA, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs.

VERIZON, METLIFE, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. 2:10-cv-03221(PGS)

Newark, New Jersey

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

1:44 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF SETTLEMENT

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ESTHER SALAS, U.S.M.J.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: GERI LANDAU SQUIRE, ESQ.

 Court Plaza South 

 21 Main Street - Suite 154

 Hackensack, NJ 07601

FOR DEFENDANT

VERIZON and METLIFE: RANDI F. KNEPPER, ESQ.

 (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &

 Carpenter, LLP)

 100 Mulberry Street

 Newark, NJ 07102

 

LESLIE K. PONTIER: ADOLFO L. LOPEZ, ESQ.

 (Ledesma, Diaz, Lopez & Noris, PC)

 412 38th Street

 Union City, NJ 07087-4864

Transcription Company: KLJ TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE, LLC

 P.O. BOX 8627

 SADDLE BROOK, NJ 07663

 (201)703-1670 - Fax (201)703-5623 

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript

produced by transcription service.

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 159
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

I N D E X

 Page

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 4

 

MS. TRIANA CONFIRMS SETTLEMENT 11 

MS PONTIER CONFIRMS SETTLEMENT 13

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 160
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 3

(Proceedings begin at 1:44 p.m.)

THE COURT: We're on the record in the matter of

Triana v Verizon, et al., Civil Action Number 10-3221.

Can I have appearances by all counsel please. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Good afternoon, Judge. Geri

Landau Squire appearing on behalf of Cecilia Triana, who is

seated to my right. 

MR. LOPEZ: Adolfo Lopez, Your Honor, appearing on

behalf of Leslie Pontier, a named defendant. 

MS. KNEPPER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Randi

Knepper on behalf of Verizon Communications, Inc. and

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, with the caveat that the

parties have entered into a consent judgment with regard to

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which will lead to its

dismissal, which is going to be submitted to Judge Sheridan.

THE COURT: Very well. 

Thank you very much to all counsel. You may be

seated. 

We commenced with settlement negotiations at about

10:15 this morning. I'm pleased to announce at 1:44 that we do

have a settlement and an amicable resolution has been reached

in this matter. 

Who's going to be laying out in general terms the

settlement please? 

MR. LOPEZ: I will, Your Honor.

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 161
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 4

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Lopez. 

MR. LOPEZ: Thank you, Your Honor. 

Your Honor, the parties, as you're aware, have reached

a settlement. The underlying issues here are the two basic

assets, one being certain pension benefits arising from a

former employee of Verizon, John M. Noone. He is -- he had a

pension available to him, which we estimate or we have figures

as of February 1 , 2011, with a value of $501,012. The other st

asset is the value of a life insurance policy, which was also

available to Mr. Noone as a result of his employment with

Verizon, the value of that asset is $107,000. 

The parties have agreed to a distribution of these

assets. And by way of background, just for the record, the

plaintiff is the former spouse of Mr. Noone. They were

divorced approximately one month prior to his death. As a

result of that divorce, there was an underlying property

settlement agreement, which gave rise to certain benefits, or

so is the claim, for a portion of those -- of the pension

proceeds. And those were established through a state court

action in the matrimonial matter. 

The additional -- the claim also arises as a result of

that property settlement agreement as to the life insurance

policy, where the plaintiff is making a claim to -- to those

proceeds because the property settlement agreement required a

policy of life insurance to be held for the benefit of -- of

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 162
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 5

the plaintiff here to secure certain alimony that was to be

paid to her. 

And to that end, the parties -- my client was the

named beneficiary under those policy -- under both the policy

and the pension program, and they each have disputed claims as

to the overall assets. 

The settlement, as reached by the parties, calls for

the value of the pension to be ascertained, each side will

value the pension and we certainly believe that these values

will not differ greatly, but we'll deal with that and -- and

there is an agreement that the plaintiff is entitled to 50

percent of the -- of whatever the value determines was the

marital coverture portion, which was at 50 percent pursuant to

the property settlement agreement. 

Also for the record, a QDRO was required. We were

advised by Miss Knepper that because it is a settlement, that

that aspect will not be -- will not have to be finalized in

state court. 

As to the life insurance policy, the parties have

agreed to a 50/50 split on the $107,000, with one caveat in

that regard. The defendant, my client, is agreeing to these

figures based upon certain representations that have been made

by the plaintiff to indicate that the total value of the estate

of the decedent, John Noone, do not exceed $45,000. 

And the reason that is important, again, just for the

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 163
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 6

record, is that the property settlement agreement reached by

the parties contemplated a -- a lien on the estate of the

decedent in the event that no life insurance policy was

obtained him to secure the alimony payments. So, that lien,

which is existent, obviously, as to the estate, could,

theoretically, be satisfied from proceeds of the estate and we

don't know the overall balance. So this settlement is based on

the presumption --

THE COURT: Well, let me interrupt you, Mr. Lopez. I

understand, and, again, I leave it to the parties to -- to make

and provide each other the necessary information with respect

to the value of the estate, but the lien that we are speaking

of was $168,000. That's what the plaintiff was entitled to

under -- under the agreement as it relates to alimony over a

seven-year period. 

Correct, Counsel? 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LOPEZ: And, Your Honor, there is no dispute --

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. LOPEZ: -- as to the figure.

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. LOPEZ: So, yes, the --

THE COURT: Just so if we have a situation where if

the estate is 46, 5 or 50, we all recognize that even assuming

that amount, plus what the settlement proceeds are with respect

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 164
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 7

to the life insurance, we're nowhere near that 168 threshold,

correct? 

MR. LOPEZ: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. LOPEZ: And it will -- under the circumstances is

that it will not be an impediment, but we are proceeding on

faith; and, unfortunately, my malpractice carrier is not very

happy when we do things on faith. So, I need to protect my

client. 

THE COURT: Correct. 

MR. LOPEZ: And that's part of my duty as an attorney

to do so, but, yes, there is an understanding that we're not

talking about minuscule, immaterial figures. It would

certainly have to be something substantial. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. LOPEZ: And this settlement is not held up by a

finalization of the estate. We're agreeing that we can -- we

can wrap up our settlement, we can disburse the proceeds, and

once the -- once the estate is finalized, an accounting -- a

copy of the accounting can be provided. I also mentioned to

Miss Squire that we can file a caveat in Middlesex County and

that way we are noticed. And I don't know, we haven't made a

final decision as to how to proceed, but certainly the record

will speak as to what the intent of the parties is. And, it's

clear that my client is not looking to set aside this

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 165
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 8

settlement, if we find another $5,000 somewhere. It would

certainly have to be something substantial, which would

materially alter the terms of the settlement.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Lopez. 

Yes, Miss Landau Squire. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Judge, I would just like to also

add to that that I've communicated with my client, there is not

an attorney who is representing her now with respect to her

role as the administratrix of the estate; however, over the

next week or so, I will be going with her to an estate attorney

so that when we provide that information to Mr. Lopez that will

be on the letterhead from an estate attorney whose reviewed the

documents to give him a number as to what the value is of the

estate. And, I'm assuming there will be a final accounting at

some subsequent time. I have no objection to him filing a

caveat to receive the information as to the final accounting.

THE COURT: Okay. And with -- before I let Miss

Knepper place something on the record, I want to confirm that

you have heard Mr. Lopez and you agree with his recitation of

the general terms of the settlement agreement? 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: I do, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Counsel.

Miss Knepper. 

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 166
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 9

MS. KNEPPER: Yes, Your Honor. With respect to

Verizon, it's our position that no QDRO has ever been

established. We are not paying any money to Miss Triana

directly. Any money going to Miss Triana is going from Miss

Pontier to Miss Triana. So Verizon will be paying all money to

Miss Pontier through her attorney's trust account and Miss

Triana will be signing a release releasing her claim to the

pension benefits to allow for this to happen.

THE COURT: Counsel, we understand how the -- the

actual settlement will operate with respect to the payment by

Verizon. Any objections to what has been placed on the record

by Miss Knepper? 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: No. And I've communicated with

Miss Knepper and she will be preparing the release for my

client's signature, which I'm certain will be acceptable. And

as soon as I receive that and when we have all this worked out,

my client will execute that I'll return it to Miss Knepper.

THE COURT: Do we have an idea of how long this will

all take? Will a 60-day order, should His Honor sign a 60-day

order, be enough time for us to get all the paperwork

transferred, as well as any of the information that needs to be

provided pursuant to the settlement? 

MR. LOPEZ: Your Honor, based upon what Miss Knepper

has indicated to us, the preliminary point is that release,

which frees up the funds, and apparently Randi --

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 167
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 10

MS. KNEPPER: We should be able to finish it within 60

days, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. If not, then you all know that

you can come back before -- or petition Judge Sheridan to

extend that order, and I strongly suggest you do, since this

Court will lose jurisdiction post the date on that 60-day

order.

But let me, if I may, speak directly to Miss Triana,

with your permission, Miss Landau. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: She wants to speak to you

directly.

I'm sorry, did you want to speak -- oh, no. I just

wanted to --

(Ms. Landau Squire conferring with Ms. Triana)

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: I'm sorry. 

THE COURT: I just want to ask some questions --

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Certainly. 

THE COURT: -- about whether she's participated in the

settlement here today and she's had an opportunity to

understand what's been laid out. At any point in time, if

there's a question, we want to take a break or a pause for a

moment, that's -- that's quite all right. And I'm going to

have questions for both sides. Okay?

Miss Triana, good afternoon, ma'am. 

MS. TRIANA: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 168
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 11

THE COURT: We had an opportunity to sit down in

chambers during the course of today's settlement negotiations,

and one thing I -- I want to make sure you understand are those

terms and conditions that were laid out by Mr. Lopez, do you

have a general understanding with, of course, your counsel's

assistance, as to the terms and conditions of the settlement?

MS. TRIANA: Yes, I do. 

THE COURT: And you've been represented by Miss Landau

Squire for some time now, correct? 

MS. TRIANA: Yes.

THE COURT: And throughout the course of her

representation she's answered any and all of your questions,

correct? 

MS. TRIANA: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you happy with the representation that

she's provided you?

MS. TRIANA: Yes. 

THE COURT: Do you think you need any additional time

to consider the terms and conditions of the settlement that we

reached today? 

MS. TRIANA: No. 

THE COURT: Okay. Has anyone forced or coerced you

into settling today? 

MS. TRIANA: No. 

THE COURT: You understand by settling, the case is

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 169
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 12

deemed closed, terminated? I'm only going to allow the parties

about 60 days, or 90, should they need some additional time, to

finalize the terms of the conditions, but there will be no

trial, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Do you understand

that?

MS. TRIANA: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: And, again, you understand the general

terms and conditions of the settlement?

MS. TRIANA: Yes. 

THE COURT: All right. Are there any questions that

you have for either the Court or for counsel? 

MS. TRIANA: No. 

THE COURT: And if you did have a question, you know

I'd stop, we'd break, I'd take another matter that I have and

come back. So, I don't want anyone, that goes for both sides,

to -- to feel like they need to do this now. I'll give you the

time you need. 

Are you comfortable moving forward with the settlement

at this point?

MS. TRIANA: Yes, I am. 

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lopez, with permission, may I

speak to your client? 

MR. LOPEZ: Of course, Your Honor. Of course. 

THE COURT: Miss Pontier, same questions for you. We

had -- we met today and conferenced, first we met together,

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 170
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 13

then we separated. Do you have any questions or concerns

regarding this settlement that's been outlined by Mr. Lopez

moments ago? 

MS. PONTIER: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: And you've been represented by Mr. Lopez

throughout the course of defending you in this action, correct? 

MS. PONTIER: Yes.

THE COURT: And you've had an opportunity to ask him,

and I in fact walked out of the room and I let you ask and

conference this matter by yourself with, of course, your mom,

who is present here today, are you happy with Mr. Lopez's

representation?

MS. PONTIER: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do you need any time to talk to him about

the terms and conditions? 

MS. PONTIER: Yes. 

THE COURT: Anyone forcing or coercing you into

entering a settlement here today?

MS. PONTIER: No.

THE COURT: And you understand that that closes the

case, right? We're done. The only thing we've got to do is

let the lawyers be lawyers, work out the paperwork and finalize

the paperwork. You understand that? 

MS. PONTIER: Yes. 

THE COURT: And you want to move forward with today's

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 171
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Colloquy 14

settlement? 

MS. PONTIER: Yes, I do. 

THE COURT: All right. Are there any questions that I

didn't ask either the defendant or the plaintiff in this case

that either side believes is necessary? 

MR. LOPEZ: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 

THE COURT: All right. Well, I just want to say on

behalf of the District of New Jersey that I thank counsel, all

counsel, their representatives for getting this settlement

reached today. It wouldn't have happened without everybody

being -- at least negotiating in good faith and compromising. 

So, I thank you all for your time. 

MS. LANDAU SQUIRE: Thank you, Your Honor, for your

time. You were very instrumental in assisting us. 

THE COURT: All right. A 60-day order will issue.

MS. KNEPPER: Thank you. 

THE COURT: Thank you so much. 

(Proceedings concluded at 1:57 p.m.)

CERTIFICATION

I, Lisa Mullen, certify that the foregoing is a

correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the

proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

01/12/12 S / Lisa Mullen

Date Lisa A. Mullen

 KLJ Transcription Service 

Case 2:10-cv-03221-PGS-ES Document 23 Filed 01/12/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 172