v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERANTONIO FERRI, et al.

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on pro se Defendant Matteo Patisso’s (“Patisso”) motion to

dismiss the complaint, which upon reading is more appropriately a motion to vacate a prior judgment

which is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (ECF No. 307), and Plaintiff’s crossmotion to enforce litigants rights. (ECF No. 310). The Court notes that Patisso’s application comesafter ajudgment was entered, an appeal to the Third Circuit has been completed, and the case is presently

listed as closed.

Patisso argues that the judgment entered against him is barred due to claim preclusion. That is,

the issues before this Court were previously litigated in a case captioned Fern v. Berkowitz, United

States District Court, Eastern District ofNew York, Civil Action No. 09-812. More particularly, Patisso

argues that the Eastern District of New York denied an injunction on the same issues and facts, and

therefore Plaintiffs case should have been precluded; and that the Court erred when granting relief tothe Plaintiff.

The doctrine of res judicata bars claims that were brought in a previous action. It protects

litigants from the burden ofrelitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privity and promotes

judicial economy by preventing needless litigation. Both New Jersey’ and federal law apply res
might have been offered at trial. Mawhinney v. Bennett, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1715(D.N.J. Jan. 11,

2010); see also Corestates Bank, NA. v. HulsAm., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 1999).

Here, the Court finds that Patisso’s argument lacks merit because the issues and parties in the

two cases are different. For example, in the Eastern District of New York case, Plaintiff was AntonioFern and Defendants were Adrienne Berkowitz, Sherri Berkowitz, Edward Fortin, Edwin Greico,Edward Wilson and Robert Harris and JMB Group who were represented by Bruce Baldinger, Esq.This case is quite different because Bruce Baldinger is Plaintiff representing his own interests and not

the interests of his clients’.

II.

Patisso also seeks that I recuse myself from case, and exclude Michael Nolan’s testimony. Both

ofthese issues were previously decided by me and appealed and dismissed by the Third Circuit. As such,

there is no reason to reopen them. Patisso’s request is denied.

III. II.

Plaintiff brings a cross-motion to enforce litigants rights for the following:

all financial and personal documents, data and information regarding thePlaintiff, any of Plaintiffs family members, Plaintiffs law firm or any

person associated therewith. The materials to be turned over shall includeboth originals and copies of any such documents, data and information,

and shall include both documents printed on paper and documents or datastored digitally or in any electronic format or manner. Defendant shallsimultaneously submit to Plaintiff and the Court a sworn affidavit

disclosing how and from whom he obtained all such documents, data,information and any other material. (Subsection 3(c)).

I This issues has been previously addressed by the Court. (See ECF Nos. 163 and 174).
ORDERED that Defendant Matteo Patisso

s motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 307) is

denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross-motion to enforce litigants rights. (ECF No. 310) is granted;

and it is further

ORDERED THAT Defendant Matteo Patisso shall fully comply with Subsection 3(C) of this

Court’s Judgment ofJuly 10, 2012, and shall withinten(l0) days ofthe date hereof, provide to Plaintiff’s

counsel all documents, personal financial information and otherwise as is set forth more fully in the

aforesaid Judgment; and it is further;

ORDERED that Patisso must submit a request, and obtain the Court’s approval,

prior to filing any new motions or applications to the Court.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.