[brief] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS [...]’S MOTION WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE (Raised Below: T2)**  [...]’s September 1, 2023 Motion to Dismiss (Pa62) was procedurally defective as it failed to contain a notice of motion or proof of service as required by the Court Rules.  *See R. 1:6-2(a); R. 1:6-3(a); R. 1:6-3(c).*  Despite the Motion’s fatal defects being raised by counsel during oral argument, the trial court failed to address the same.  *See T2 15:12-18.*  Though *R. 1:1-2* allows for relaxation of any court rule, “[e]very motion made to a court must ‘state the time and place when it is to be presented to the court, the grounds upon which it is made and the nature of the relief sought and shall be accompanied by a proposed form of order. ’”  *Eastampton Ctr., LLC v. Planning Bd. of Tp. of Eastampton*, 354 N.J. Super. 171, 187 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting *R. 1:6-2(a)*).  “Rule 1:1-2 provides that the rules of court shall be construed to secure a just determination.  . . .”  Id. (emphasis added).  Here, where enforcement of the CSA—which violates the DACCA and public policy—would constitute enforcement of a contract entered into in violation of a New Jersey licensing statute, relaxation of the Court Rules is inappropriate.  See Accountemps Div. of Robert Half, Inc. v. Birch Tree Grp., Ltd., 115 N.J. 614, 626 (1989) (“Our courts have consistently held that public policy precludes enforcement of a contract entered into in violation of [the State's] licensing statute[s]”).  In Insight Global, LLC v. Collabera, Inc., 446 N.J. Super. 525, 531-32 (Ch. Div. 2015), the Chancery Division examined the limit on the ability of an unlicensed entity to seek relief from a court.  Insight Global held that public policy prohibits enforcement of a contract entered into in violation of a licensing statute.  Insight Global, LLC, 446 N.J. Super. at 531-32.  Any relaxation of the Court Rules serves only to reward [...]’s for their role as co-conspirators in [...]’s fraudulent scheme to defraud New Jersey consumers.  Aside from the trial court’s de facto ratification of [...]’s role in unlawful debt adjustment activity, the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint as the appropriate remedy for a matter referred to arbitration pursuant to the FAA is a stay rather than a dismissal.  See 9 U.S.C. § 3.  Moreover, “as the dismissal of the complaint was not an adjudication on the merits, the dismissal order should have been without prejudice, not with prejudice. ”  *Egg Harbor Care Ctr. v. Scheraldi*, 455 N.J. Super. 343, 355 (App. Div. 2018); see also *Korvettes, Inc. v. Brous*, 617 F.2d 1021, 1024 (3d Cir. 1980) (“A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is plainly not a determination of the merits of a claim.  Ordinarily, such a dismissal is ‘without prejudice. ’”); *A.A. v. Gramiccioni*, 442 N.J. Super. 276, 281 n.3 (App. Div. 2015) (“A dismissal based on the court's procedural inability to consider a case is without prejudice. ”); *Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. Indus. Risk Insurers*, 341 N.J. Super. 489, 519 (App. Div. 2001) (finding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because such a dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits).  Should the Court choose to relax the rules despite [...]’s participation in a fraudulent joint co-venture, the appropriate remedy is a stay of the proceedings pending completion of arbitration.  And in the event the dismissal is affirmed, it must be without prejudice as the merits of [...]’s claims have not been adjudicated.  Thus, the trial court’s December 12, 2023 Order must be reversed.