SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1143-22 

CHRISTIAN GONZALES, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

WILFREDO MEJIAMENDOZA and UBER, 

 Defendants-Respondents. 

___________________________

Argued February 12, 2024 – Decided September 3, 2024 

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-0737-20.

Josue Jean Baptiste argued the cause for appellant 

(Jean-Baptiste & Associates, attorneys; Josue Jean 

Baptiste, on the briefs). 

Daniel W. Szep argued the cause for respondent 

Wilfredo Mejia-Mendoza (Goetz Schenker Blee & 

Wiederhorn, attorneys; Scott Barry Lipowitz and 

Daniel W. Szep, of counsel and on the brief). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-1143-22

Lisa M. Only argued the cause for respondents Uber 

Technologies, Inc. I/P/A Uber Corporation (Goldberg

Segalla LLP, attorneys; John W. Meyer, of counsel and

on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

Plaintiff Christian Gonzales appeals from the November 18, 2022 order 

denying his motion for reconsideration of the October 7, 2022 order dismissing 

his complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2) for failure to respond 

to discovery, comply with an August 26, 2022 order to produce the outstanding 

discovery, and attend the scheduled independent medical examination (IME), 

and denying his motion to reinstate his complaint. Having reviewed the record 

and considered the parties' contentions, we affirm. 

I.

In February 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging 

personal injuries because of an automobile accident. During discovery, plaintiff 

failed to provide responses to Mejia-Mendoza's interrogatories and notice to 

produce.1 It was not until defendants' second "good faith" letter did plaintiff 

provide initial answers to defendants' Form A interrogatories. Plaintiff's 

1

 Mejia-Mendoza conducted discovery on behalf of co-defendant, Uber, so we 

will refer to Mejia-Mendoza's conduct in discovery as defendants' conduct for 

simplicity. 
3 A-1143-22

answers listed several health care providers that rendered treatment related to 

the October 12, 2019 accident and disclosed a previous motor vehicle accident 

from 2013. Although plaintiff's answers referenced attached medical bills and 

records, none were provided. Plaintiff likewise did not provide responses to 

defendants' supplemental interrogatories and notice to produce and failed to sign

the requested HIPAA releases. 

In attempt to cure the deficient responses to Form A interrogatories, 

plaintiff resent his responses with the missing attachments: one medical bill, 

several pages of handwritten examination notes, and four pages of MRI tests. 

Defendants consented to plaintiff's request for an additional two weeks to 

provide the remaining outstanding discovery responses. Thereafter, plaintiff 

provided several HIPAA releases, including a signed blank release, to 

defendants. 

Upon review of plaintiff's medical records, defendants requested 

additional information regarding the identity of the doctor that recommended 

plaintiff undergo cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries, additional surgical 

reports, and the operative reports regarding plaintiff's epidural injections. 

Defendants also requested specific responses to ten Form A interrogatories. 

Plaintiff did not respond. 
4 A-1143-22

After plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's repeated requests, 

defendants moved to extend discovery and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint 

without prejudice. On August 27, 2021, an order was entered granting 

defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and denying the motion to 

extend discovery as moot. 

Plaintiff still made no attempt to cure the deficiencies. On November 17, 

defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because 

plaintiff's discovery responses remained outstanding. Plaintiff's request for an 

extension was granted so as to provide "fully respons[ive] discovery to 

defendants." 

Plaintiff served the additional and supplemental discovery responses but

did not provide the requested HIPAA releases nor produce the additional 

medical records for the providers who had recommended surgery or performed 

injections. Plaintiff also sent an email confirmation he was examined by an 

orthopedist and surgery was recommended, but did not provide the name of the 

doctor, treatment records, or HIPAA authorizations. Nonetheless, defendants 

withdrew their motion. 

Although plaintiff's complaint had not been reinstated, defendants 

scheduled a defense medical examination. Plaintiff failed to attend the 
5 A-1143-22

examination or notify defendants of his need to reschedule. When defendants 

later rescheduled the examination, plaintiff again failed to appear. 

 After plaintiff failed to appear for the second examination, defendants 

moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failing to attend the

examination, or in the alternative, compel the examination. A July 22, 2022

order followed, compelling plaintiff to produce the outstanding discovery, 

appear at the examination, and move to reinstate his complaint after the 

examination was conducted. The order also stated if plaintiff failed to attend 

the examination, his motion to reinstate his complaint would be denied. Plaintiff 

prematurely moved to reinstate his complaint, resulting in the court's denial of 

his motion on August 26, 2022, which once again compelled plaintiff to attend 

the examination. 

 Nevertheless, plaintiff again failed to appear for the scheduled 

examination. Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with 

prejudice for his failure to comply with both the July 22 and August 26, 2022 

orders. Two days before the hearing date, plaintiff's counsel filed a certification 

advising that he provided notice of the pending dismissal motion to his client in 

accordance with Appendix II B. 
6 A-1143-22

 On October 7, 2022, following oral argument, the trial judge granted 

defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice based on his 

failure to provide discovery prior to the motion to reinstate his complaint, failure 

to comply with discovery as set forth in the August 26, 2022 order, and the 

failure to attend the court-ordered examination. Plaintiff's cross-motion to 

reinstate his complaint was denied. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which 

was denied in an oral decision on November 18, 2022. This appeal followed. 

 Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial judge erred in "refusing to evaluate 

whether discovery had been fully compliant before deciding to dismiss a case 

with prejudice." Plaintiff also argues that a hearing should be required prior to 

the trial court issuing an order to dismiss a complaint with prejudice. Lastly, 

plaintiff contends that the trial judge has an obligation to give an "innocent" 

plaintiff his "day in court." Plaintiff's arguments lack merit. 

We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion to reconsider with 

deference. Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022) (citing 

Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021)). "Motions for 

reconsideration are governed by Rule 4:49-2, which provides that the decision 

to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion 
7 A-1143-22

of the trial court." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 

N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015). 

In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for 

discovery misconduct, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Abtrax 

Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins-Sin, Inc. 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995). Under this standard, 

a trial court's decision on a discovery matter is "entitled to substantial deference 

and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 

N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (quoting State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016)). 

Plaintiff repeatedly failed to abide by his discovery obligations. He failed 

to produce fully responsive answers to interrogatories, to fully produce the 

treatment records, to disclose the healthcare providers names, and to appear for 

three scheduled defense examinations. The trial judge was permitted to dismiss 

the complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(b)(3). As aptly stated by the 

trial judge: "There [was] nothing in the [p]laintiff's opposition . . . brief that 

deals with that discovery. It does not say that we provided all of the requested 

discovery matters that were the subject of the prior dismissal without prejudice." 

We discern no abuse of discretion based on plaintiff's deliberate and 

contumacious noncompliance with two court orders. Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound 
8 A-1143-22

Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100, 115 (2005). The trial judge properly exercised the 

discretion under Rule 4:23-5(b)(3). 

We are likewise satisfied the trial judge reviewed and considered the 

evidence submitted by plaintiff in support of his reconsideration motion at the 

time of the denial. D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990). 

Thus, we have no cause to disturb the trial judge's decision. 

 Affirmed.