SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO

. A

- 3218

- 17T2
ANITA WALSH , Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. PROSPECT EOGH, INC. , d/b/a EAST ORANGE GENERAL HOSPITAL, and PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS, IN C. , Defendant

- Appellants

.

______________________________

Argued on October 31 , 2018

– Decided Before Judges Koblitz, Currier and Mayer. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Div ision, Essex County, Docket No. L

- 7912

- 17. Ivan R. Novich argued the cause for appellant (Littler Mendelson, P C, attorney s; Ivan R. Novich, of counsel and on the brief; Lauren J. Marcus, on the brief s ). Arthur L. Raynes argued the cause for respondent ( Wiley Malehorn Sirota & Raynes, attorneys ; Arthur L.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.

November 21, 20182 A

- 3218

- 17T2 Raynes, of counsel and on the brief; Courtney A. Reed Keren, on the bri ef).
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Anita Walsh sued her former employer, Prospect E OGH , Inc. d/b/a East Orange General Hospital and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (defendants) claiming she was wrongfully discharged under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34 :19

- 1 to

- 14

. Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement (Agreement) that plaintiff admits sign ing

. Plaintiff claims that the
A greement was not explained to her, she does not re call signing it, and argues for the first time on appeal that it is not enforceable because defendants did not sign the document

. Without allowing the requested oral argument, the motion court issued an order denying defendants' motion, writing on it only : " P laintiff did not agree to give up right jury [sic] trial

. " We reverse and remand for reconsideration , with oral argument

. Plaintiff signed the Agreement on September 8, 2016 , three days before she began work, in connection with her employment as Vice President of Operations

. The Agreement is labeled "East Orange General Hospital Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate." Although there was a signature line for defendants , they did not sign the Agreement. The Agreement states:3 A

- 3218

- 17T2 To the fullest extent a llowed by l aw, any controversy, claim or dispute between you and Prospect EOGH, Inc. dba East Orange Gen eral Hospital and/or any of its related entiti es, holding companies, parents, subsidiaries, div isions, officers, shareholders, directors, employees , agents, vendor s, contractors, doctors, patients, insurers, prede cessors, successors, and assigns ( collectively, " the Company " ) relating to or arising out of your employment or the cessation of that employment will be submitted to final and binding arbitration. The Ag reement covers "all employment related claims including, but not limited to . . . violation of public policy, discrimination . . . or any other employment

related claim under any state or federal statutes or laws relating to an employee’s relationship with his/her employer . . . ." The Agreement also states, directly above the signature line s , in capital letters : "BY AGREEING TO THIS BINDING MUTUAL ARBITRATION PROVISION, BOTH YOU AND THE
COMPANY GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY. BY SIGNING BELOW, I C ONFIRM THAT I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE
TO THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT." Defend ant s terminated plaintiff's employment on March 15, 2017, for reasons that she asserts in her November 2017 complaint were pretext ual in
nature

. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated , contrary to CEPA , because she voiced her objections to the hospital's practices

.4 A

- 3218

- 17T2

Defendants argue on appeal that their request for oral argument was denied improperly

. They rely on Raspantini v. Arocho , 364 N.J. Super. 528,
5 31 (App. Div. 2003) ( stating that "because defendants' initial motion sought dispositive relief, plaintiffs' request for oral argument shoul d have been granted as of right "). Defendants argue that although a trial court may deny a request for oral argumen t on a substantive motion, "the reason for the denial of the request, in that circumstance, should itself be set forth on the record," which the trial court did not do here. Id. at 531

- 32. We agree with defendants that oral argument, or the reason for n ot affording oral argument, must be provided by
the court

. Defendants urge us not to remand the matter to the motion court because of the lack of oral argument , but rather to review the motion de novo. The

reasons for the court's decision , however, are also lacking. The trial court must provide reasons with its decisions, e ither on the record or in writing. As we said more than twenty years ago,

Unfortunately, the judge made no findings of fact or legal conclusions as required by R ule 1: 6

- 2(f). An articulation of reasons is essential to the fair resolution of a case. A trial judge has a duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law "on every motion decided by written orders that are appealable as of right." R. 1:7

- 4. Failure to perform this duty "'constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the5 A

- 3218

- 17T2 appellate court.'" Curtis v. Finneran , 83 N.J. 563, 569

- 70 (1980) ( quoting Kenwood Assocs. v. B d

. of Adjustment of Englewood , 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 ( App. Div. 1976)); see id. at 570 ("Naked conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of Rule 1:7

- 4."). [ Italiano v. Rudkin (Ital iano) , 294 N.J. Super. 502, 505 (App. Div. 1996).] "Moreover, the appellate court ordinarily cannot perform its review function in the absence of finding s." Filippone v. Lee , 304 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div. 1997). Although we review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, we cannot review the decision of the trial court on a blank
slate. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 454 N.J. Super. 298, 301

- 02 (App. Div. 2018)

. The court wrote one sentence on the order , finding no evidence of a waiver of a jury trial , although such a waiver is set forth clearly in the Agreement. We are thus unclear as to whether the motion court reviewed the proper material. Additionally, the court gave no reason for not allowing oral argument. We reverse and remand to the court for oral argument and a reasoned decision. In the interest of completeness, the parties should be allowed to supplement their mot ion papers. Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.6 A

- 3218

- 17T2