IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 16, 2012 page 1 of 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION

BERGEN COUNTY IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. L-8966-11 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. ELMWOOD PARK BOARD OF

EDUCATION; RICHARD D. TOMKO, Principal and current Superintendent of Schools; WILLIAM MOFFITT, Board Secretary

Motion To Request The Honorable Judge Peter E. Doynes Recusal

2.

Defendants.

Comes now the Plaintiff, Irandokht Toorzani, Pro Se and moves to recuse the Honorable Judge Peter E. Doyne under 28 USC 455; N.J.S.A. 2A: 15-49; Rule 1:12; and NJ Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3C from further involvement in this case for the reasons stated in the Plaintiffs attached brief/correspondence (Request For Judge Doynes Recusal) dated 4/5/2012 and other Plaintiffs correspondences dated 3/26/2012 [EXHIBIT 1], 2/5/2012 [EXHIBIT 2], 3/22/2012 [EXHIBIT 3], and 1/21/2012 [EXHIBIT 4]. I, Irandokht Toorzani, of full age, further certify as follows: I am Plaintiff in the action captioned Irandokht Toorzani v. Elmwood Park Board of Education, et al.; Docket No: L-8966-11. I certify that this motion is being made in good faith and not for purposes of vexation or delay and certify that the foregoing statements and statements on the enclosed brief/correspondence dated 4/5/2012 and correspondences dated 3/26/2012, 2/5/2012, 3/22/2012, and 1/21/2012, made by me are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. /

PLAINTIFF, PRO SE Dated: April 16, 2012 IRANDOKHT TOORZANI

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 1 of 10

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION

BERGEN COUNTY IRANDOKHT TOORZANI, Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. L-8966-11 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

3. ELMWOOD PARK BOARD OF

EDUCATION; RICHARD D. TOMKO, Principal and current Superintendent of Schools; WILLIAM MOFFITT, Board Secretary

Request For Judge Doynes Recusal

4.

Defendants.

Dear Honorable Judge Doyne: I, Irandokht Toorzani (Pro se Plaintiff in the above captioned matter), am in receipt of Your Honors correspondence dated 3/27/2012, postmarked 3/29/2012 (in response to Plaintiffs correspondence dated 3/22/2012 1 and 3/26/2012 2) and I am respectfully requesting Your Honor to accept this letter as a request for Your Honors recusal and in response to Your Honors correspondence (which also had the case management order provided by the Defendants attorney in its attachment).

In response and objection to Your Honors case management order dated 3/15/2012 and Your Honors correspondence dated 3/16/2012 (postmarked 3/20/2012) which had Your Honors case management order dated 3/15/2012 in its attachment (which there is no record of them in ACMS Public Access). A) In reply to Defendants opposition (which there is no record of it in ACMS Public Access) to Plaintiffs motion dated 3/13/2012 for: i. Amending Plaintiff's complaint ii. Asking Your Honors permission to file a motion (application) to apply for summary Judgment; AND, B) In opposition to case management conference orders of 3/15/2012

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se In the correspondence dated 3/27/2012, Your Honor stated that: 1. Objections to form and entry of orders are to be made prior to execution.

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 2 of 10

Plaintiff reiterates and restates the statement of her correspondence dated 3/22/2012 ( which was in objection and response to Your Honors case management order dated 3/15/2012 and Your Honors correspondence dated 3/16/2012 [postmarked 3/20/2012]) and say that during case management conference of 3/15/2012, Plaintiff clearly stated her objections when Your Honor and Defendants attorney were setting up the discovery and end of discovery dates (proof is the taped record of the case management conference of 3/15/2012) . 2. As per this court's letter of March 16, 2012 Ms. Toorzani's objections to form as it relates to
the order executed on March 15,2012 were deemed waived.

Plaintiff reiterates and restates the statement of her correspondence dated 3/22/2012 and say that in contrast to what Your Honor stated
3

in your correspondence dated 3/16/2012(cover

letter of Your Honors case management order dated 3/15/2012) that As Ms. Toorzani chose to
absent herself from the courtroom prior to review of the same, any objections as to form are deemed waived. Plaintiff was present in the case management conference of 3/15/2012 by the last second

that Your Honor ended the case management conference. In that case management conference , after Your Honor ignored Plaintiffs objections to the deadlines which were being set up by Your Honor and Defendants attorney for discovery and end of discovery dates (not to mention that Your Honor overruled your own order in regard to the end of discovery date per Defendants attorneys request and Your Honor changed the end of discovery date form 3/29/2013 to 8/31/2012), Your Honor ended the case management conference (proof is the taped record of the case management conference of 3/15/2012). In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, when Plaintiff noticed that Your Honor were ignoring her objection, Plaintiff stated , I am not being heard in this court and I have objection to that , Your Honor responded, OK, very good, thank you and Your Honor and Defendants attorney continued to set up the dates for discovery despite Plaintiffs objections (specially in regard to end of discovery date which Your Honor changed it per Defendants
3

In order to deprive me from my rights to oppose the case management orders of 3/15/2012.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 3 of 10

attorneys request after you had already determined the end of discovery date to be 3/29/2013, based on the track). Proof is the taped record of the case management conference of 3/15/2012. 5. More generally, and after having reviewed Ms. Toorzani's "opposition to case management
conference orders [sic] of 31/5/12," and her reply to the pending motion for leave to file a summary judgment motion and to amend plaintiffs complaint, certain observations are required.

Plaintiffs reply dated 3/26/2012, was a reply to the Defendants opposition (which Defendants did not filed it with the Court Clerks Office and there is no record of that opposition in ACMS Public Access and it has been kept off the record) to Plaintiffs motion dated 3/13/2012. Also Plaintiff did not make error by indicating "opposition to case management conference orders of 31/5/12," since there were two orders regarding the case management conferences of 3/15/2012, which there are no record of them in ACMS Public Access. 6. Ms. Toorzani indicates on page 2 of her reply brief, footnote 2, she requested the taped
record of the two case management conferences "from the court" but only received "a part of each case management conference and not the whole session ... ". The undersigned, generally, does not involve itself with a litigant's request for a transcript. Rather, any such request should be directed to the Transcription office. If Ms. Toorzani believes she did not receive that which she requested, and presumably paid for, she should contact the Transcription office at 201527-2277. ,And The suggestion that the plaintiff "had no voice" in the case management conference is belied by the record. Further, the court categorically rejects the plaintiff's 'various assertions of intimidation and/or humiliation

The footnote 2 on page 2 of Plaintiffs correspondence dated 3/26/2012 was intended to imply that the taped record of those case management conferences are the proofs that Plaintiff did not have voice (meaning: given the pretense of a hearing when, in fact, no listening took place) in Your Honors courtroom during those case management conferences and are proofs that how Your Honor have been humiliating and intimidating 4 Plaintiff. As one example when
4

To intentionally provide an anxiety provoking circumstances to make Plaintiff unable to verbalize herself and have a coherent Speech to defend her rights, when Your Honor have already noticed Plaintiffs disability in the first case management conference and Plaintiff had also brought it to Your Honors attention by her letter dated 2/5/2012 that: I could not defend my rights in the case management conference of February 2, 2012, since as I told Your Honor in that conference, because of my health issue (severe anxiety), I cannot have a coherent Speech in anxiety provoking circumstances and as
Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 4 of 10

Plaintiff had already made it clear that she had waived her right for an oral argument on her motion 5 (as to why a Jury trial is appropriate ), Your Honor spent several minutes to argue with Plaintiff with an intimidating tone whether Plaintiff wanted to have an oral argument in regard to that motion or not (while Your Honor were pretending that you could not understand Plaintiff) to make a confusion for pro se Plaintiff and intentionally provide an anxiety provoking circumstances for her. 7. Further, there may be a fundamental misunderstanding by Ms. Toorzani concerning the entry
of orders. Although it is preferable for the court to solicit litigants' and/or counsels' positions, the court is not beholden to accept the same.

Your Honor there is NO misunderstanding by Plaintiff concerning the entry of orders. Plaintiff was and is aware that Your Honor are supposed to make the decisions based on the Rules of the Court and in the absence of the Rules, based on Your Honors discretions (and not based on what parties desires are) and it is preferable for the court to solicit litigants' and/or counsels' positions, the court is not beholden to accept the same, but Plaintiff was not and is not able to understand why Your Honor have been bound to side with the Defendants on any issues which has caused Your Honor to overrule your own orders three times 6 per Defendants requests

Your Honor witnessed in that conference, I was not able to verbalize myself to defend my rights. Therefore I (Plaintiff, pro se) am writing this letter of reconsideration to preserve my rights since I did not want to continue trying more to defend my rights verbally in the case management conference and be more derided and humiliated because of my disability and I am hoping that Your Honor are not going to question my learning ability or make another comment about my learning ability for writing this letter of reconsideration
5

a) Order dated 2/7/2012 was overruled by Your Honors new order dated 3/2/2012 (postmarked 3/3/2012) per Defendants request dated 2/22/2012 (page 2 3 it is respectfully submitted that the court adhere to its prior ruling that no motions, and in particular motions for summary judgment or summary disposition, be filed )
Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 5 of 10

in their best interest and overrule the Rule of Superior Court to bind Plaintiff and prohibit her from representing herself before this court in accordance with the Rules of the Court ( prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any motion without Your Honors prior permission and prohibiting plaintiff from filing a motion to apply for summary judgment) and presenting her case in an orderly manner and a fair condition. 8. The court encloses Case Management Order II executed on March 27,2012. That order
permits the plaintiff, as plaintiff requested, to submit to the court the names and citations of various cases where OPMA or OPRA matters were adjudicated by summary judgment. In order to afford the plaintiff this opportunity the court, sua sponte, is carrying the plaintiffs application for summary judgment for one week and will address the same on April 5, 2012.

Since Your Honor had prohibited Plaintiff from filing any motion without Your Honors prior permission (from the beginning that this case was filed with this Court) and also Your Honor had prohibited Plaintiff from filing an application to apply for summary judgment (in contrast to the Rules of the NJ Superior Court, R. 4:69-2 & R. 4:46) per Defendants request, Plaintiff followed Your Honors orders and moved and filed her motion dated 3/13/2012 to ask for Your Honors permission to file an application to apply for summary judgment (Plaintiff has never filed any application with the court for summary judgment7 since she had not had Your
b) Order dated 2/16/2012 was overruled by Your Honors new order in Your Honors correspondence dated 3/2/2012 (postmarked 3/6/2012 ) and a case management conference was arranges for 3/15/2012 a day before return date for Plaintiffs motion as to why a jury trial is appropriate for the instant matter. c) During the case management conference of 3/15/2012, Your Honor determined the end of discovery date to be 3/29/2013 but when Your Honor left the courtroom and returned after several minutes, Your Honor overruled your own order in regard to the end of discovery date which Your Honor had rendered several minutes before and changed it from 3/29/2013 to 8/31/2012 per Defendants attorneys request and then Your Honor and Defendants attorney set up discovery dates which Plaintiff had objected to. After Your Honor overruled your own order in regard to the end of discovery date and set up the discovery dates with Defendants attorney, on a prepared cased management order Form belonged to chancery division, Your Honor ordered Plaintiff to sign that Form, before even reviewing Plaintiffs motion for amending her complaint or her motion as to why a jury trial is appropriate for the instant matter (while she had not even agreed with the discovery deadlines and the date for the end of discovery) which Plaintiff refused to do so. Plaintiff would have waived all her rights in regard to having a trial with a Jury if she had signed that Form belong to chancery division. When Plaintiff noticed that in the ACMS Public Access, a motion day had been scheduled for summary Judgment on 4/13/2012 (based on 28-day required time for filing an application [motion] for summary
Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se Honors permission)

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 6 of 10

Your Honor as Plaintiff stated in her reply (dated 3/26/2012) to Defendants opposition, Plaintiff can provide Your Honor with more than ten Case laws in regard to OPMA and OPRA in New Jersey Superior Court that the Superior Court had permitted the parties to move and apply for summary Judgment while Plaintiff had been prohibited by Your Honor to file an application to apply for summary Judgment. But Plaintiff believes there was no need to provide the court with those case laws since Plaintiff has not even filed an application for summary judgment with the court and she has just asked the court to let her to file an application to apply for summary judgment and since Plaintiffs adversary and the Court are so well aware of those case laws, as one example Kevin M. OBrien V. Borough Of Woodcliff Lake, Docket No. BER-L-5215-11 which has been adjudicated by Your Honor on 8/4/2011. 9. As indicated, these actions are generally denominated as summary actions and as such, the need
for summary judgment continues to elude the court.

Your Honor Plaintiff filed her complaint on 10/28/2011, against Defendants for their willful and intentional violations of OPMA (filed in lieu of Prerogative writ; Plaintiffs motion

judgment when Plaintiff had neither filed nor was permitted to file an application [motion] for summary judgment), Plaintiff called and informed the Court Clerks Office that Plaintiff had not filed any application [motion] for summary judgment and her motion dated 3/13/2012 had been for: a) Amending her complaint, and b) Asking Your Honors permission to file an application for summary judgment based Your Honors order which states without Your Honors prior permission Plaintiff is not allowed to file any motions. at that time, Clerk of the Court directed Plaintiff to contact Your Honors Law Clerk (Mr. Nicholas Dimakos, Esq.) when Plaintiff did so, Your Honors Law Clerk (Mr. Nicholas Dimakos, Esq.) told Plaintiff that it had been an error and was going to be fixed. But still there is a scheduled motion hearing for 4/13/2012 on the ACMS Public Access, Case Proceeding List (despite Plaintiffs several phone call) and Your Honors correspondence dated 3/27/2012, also states that In order to afford the plaintiff this opportunity the court, sua sponte, is carrying the plaintiffs application for summary judgment for one week WHEN Plaintiff has never filed any application for summary judgment and based on Your Honors Law clerks statements Your Honor have been aware of that.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 7 of 10

to change the track [which had been entered erroneously] was filed on 2/14/2012 and her motion to amend her complaint was filed on 3/13/2012) and Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Your Honor, the court may give summary judgment against a Plaintiff or Defendant on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if it considers that Plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue or Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue (which is the case here). Filing a summary judgment is not eluding the court, otherwise the NJ Superior Courts (including Bergen County Superior Court, Honorable Judge Peter E. Doyne) should not have permitted parties to file summary judgment in cases involved violations of OPMA and OPRA (Kevin M. OBrien V. Borough Of Woodcliff Lake, Docket No. BER-L-5215-11). 10. Further, plaintiff's position there is no need for discovery as her claim is well founded based upon
undisputed facts, is difficult to reconcile with her position she requires an extensive period of time for discovery.

Per Defendants request, Your Honor prohibited Plaintiff from filing any motion without Your Honors prior permission (from the beginning that this case was filed with this Court) in contrast to the Rules of the NJ Superior Court; per Defendants request, Your Honor prohibited Plaintiff from filing a motion to apply for summary judgment in contrast to the Rules of the NJ Superior Court; and also per Defendants attorneys request Your Honor overruled your own order and changed the end of discovery date from 3/29/2013 to 8/31/2012 in the case management conference of 3/15/2012. Even though Plaintiff believed and believes that there is no need for discovery as her claims are well founded based on undisputed facts, direct physical evidences, and the law, and Plaintiff was and is entitled to file an application (motion) for summary judgment but since Your Honor did not allow Plaintiff to file an application (motion) for summary judgment and coerced Plaintiff into discovery, therefore if this case goes to trial considering that two firms are representing the Defendants, it should not be hard to reconcile if plaintiff (pro se) asked the court (considering her health conditions) to consider the end of discovery date based on the track to be 3/29/2013, to let Plaintiff prepare herself for trial.

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 8 of 10

A closed inspection of documents which have not been filed with the Court Clerks Office (but a copy of them had been sent to Plaintiff by Your Honors staff or the Defendants attorneys; None of these documents [including but not limited to the case management orders and Defendants oppositions to Plaintiffs motions] have been listed in ACMS Public Access, case document list and they are off the record) 8, the documents which have been filed with the Court Clerks Office, Plaintiffs correspondence dated 1/21/2012, 2/5/2012, 3/22/2012, and 3/26/2012 and the taped record of two case management conferences 9 cause any person with a
8

Interestingly when Defendants have opposed Plaintiffs motions, ACMS Public Access, Motion Inquiry, shows that Plaintiffs motions have not been opposed by the Defendants. i. In the case management conference of 2/2/2012, Your Honor accused Plaintiff of lying when Your Honor did not have any evidence to support your accusation. In the case management conference of 2/2/2012, Your Honor made comment about Plaintiffs learning ability when Plaintiff was trying to defend her rights in regard to her entitlement to file a motion(application) for summary judgment in accordance with the Rules of Court. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, Your Honor made comment about Plaintiffs ability to verbalize herself to teach children (which was irrelevant to the subject matter of the instant complaint) when Your Honor were pretending that Your Honor could not understand Plaintiff (if Your Honor were not really able to understand Plaintiff, why Your Honor did not ask Plaintiff to appear before the Court with an interpreter for the second case management conference instead of humiliating her in front of others). Plaintiff needs to add that her students State Testing Scores and her students point of view (Exhibit: just a few examples of the childrens opinions about Plaintiffs teaching ability and her as a teacher) prove how high-qualified Plaintiff has been, in performing her job and teaching children. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, when Plaintiff asked Your Honor that based on what authority or Rule of Court Your Honor had prohibited her from filling any motion without Your Honors prior permission per Defendants request, Your Honor asked Plaintiff with an intimidating tone if she was questioning Your Honors authority to enter an order (when Plaintiff was so clear when she asked that question, Proof is the taped record of that case management conference), in order to not respond her question and provide an anxiety provoking situation for her. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, when Plaintiff asked Your Honor how Your Honor overruled your own order (per Defendants attorneys request) which had been issued in the first part of case management conference of 3/15/2012, Your Honor responded, Did you conclude yourself? and disregarded Plaintiffs concern.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

Continued on the next page

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 9 of 10

common sense to believe that Your Honor has been bound to side with the Defendants on any issues since Your Honor have overruled your own orders in the best interest of Defendants per their requests, Your Honor have overruled the Rules of Superior Court to bind Plaintiff, and Your Honor have bound plaintiff by your orders which have been in contrast to the Rules of the Court to prohibit Plaintiff from presenting her case before this court based on the Rules of the Court in an orderly manner and a fair condition. It appears that Your Honor have a double standard in terms of Your Honors Judicial conduct since: 1. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, Your Honor asked Defendants attorney if she wanted the Court to carry Plaintiffs motion as to why Jury trial is appropriate to provide defendants an extra opportunity to oppose Plaintiffs motion when defendants had already missed the deadline to oppose that motion, but Your Honor denied Plaintiffs request to carry the same motion to be reviewed after her motion to amend her complaint which was returnable on 3/30/2012 and Your Honor stated I do not carry motion and Your Honor suggested Plaintiff to withdraw the motion and revi. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, when Plaintiff asked Your Honor why Plaintiff had to agree with a discovery Form (schedule) which belonged to chancery division when Plaintiff had filed her complaint in the law division, Your Honor responded Did you conclude yourself? and disregarded Plaintiffs concern.

vii. In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, when Plaintiff noticed that Your Honor were ignoring her objections, Plaintiff stated, I am not being heard in this Court and I have objection to that, Your Honor responded, OK, very good, thank you and disregarded Plaintiffs concern and Your Honor and Defendants attorney continued to set up the dates for discovery despite Plaintiffs objections. viii. DOUBLE STANDARD: In the case management conference of 3/15/2012, Your Honor asked Defendants attorney if she wanted the Court to carry Plaintiffs motion as to why Jury trial is appropriate to provide Defendants an extra opportunity to oppose that motion when Defendants had already missed the deadline to oppose that motion, but Your Honor denied Plaintiffs request to carry the same motion to be reviewed after her motion to amend her complaint which was returnable on 3/30/2012 and Your Honor stated I do not carry motion and Your Honor suggested Plaintiff to withdraw the motion and re-file it again if Plaintiff wanted that motion to be reviewed after her motion to amend her complaint. And ix. Much more

IRANDOKHT TOORZANI PLAINTIFF, Pro se

Date: April 5, 2012 Page 10 of 10

file it again if Plaintiff wanted that motion to be reviewed after her motion to amend her complaint (proof is the taped record of the case management conference of 3/15/2012). And, 2. When Your Honor adjudicated OPMA and OPRA matter by summary judgment in 8/4/2011 in Bergen County Superior Court KEVIN M. OBRIEN v. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, DOCKET No. BER-L-5215-11 Your Honor have prohibited Plaintiff from filing an application for summary judgment because Your Honor believes and stated that As indicated, these actions are generally denominated as summary actions and as such, the need for summary judgment continues to elude the court. Your Honors abusive attitude towards Plaintiff in two case management conferences of 2/2/2012 and 3/15/2012 was clearly designed for the improper purpose of demeaning Plaintiff and for the sole purpose of humiliation, embarrassment, harassment, and intimidation, which is reprehensible for a Judge to act in this manner and results in manifest injustice. All the aforementioned and Your Honors manifest bias presented by now proves that Your Honor are not able to hear this case in a fair and impartial manner, therefore Pro se Plaintiff (Irandokht Toorzani) is respectfully requesting Your Honor to recuse yourself from presiding over the instant matter and permit Plaintiff to have a truly unbiased tribunal by letting the Court to assign a judge randomly to this complaint who is not bias, does not have problem with litigants who have accent, and does not have difficulty to understand them, if Your Honor do not have either any interest towards Defendants or any adverse interest towards Plaintiff.10 Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Irandokht Toorzani

CC: Howard M. Nirenberg, Esq. via email Nirenbergvarano@aol.com

10

If this letter is not sufficient to request Your Honors recusal, Plaintiff will move and file a motion with brief and certification in regard to this matter.