SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3700-19T3

TRACEY M. PEREZ a/k/a

TRACEY PEREZ GARCIA,

individually and on behalf of

those similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LEONARD AUTO ENTERPRISES,

INC. d/b/a TOYOTA OF 

HACKENSACK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

Submitted January 12, 2021 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.

On appeal before the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-7019-19.

Ameri & Associates, attorneys for appellant (Nima 

Ameri and Steven A. Jayson, on the briefs).

Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., attorneys for 

respondent (Vano I. Haroutunian, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 25, 2021
2

A-3700-19T3

PER CURIAM

Defendant Leonard Auto Enterprises, Inc. appeals orders that denied its 

motions to vacate a default judgment and for reconsideration. Because the 

motion judge should have viewed the reconsideration motion as a second, 

permissible Rule 4:50 motion, and because defendant presented a meritorious 

defense in that second motion, we reverse and remand.

In 2016, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, plaintiff Tracey 

M. Perez commenced an action against defendant, seeking damages based on: 

the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20; the Retail Installment Sales 

Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 to -61; the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and 

Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18; the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

1601 to 1667f; and the common law. That first action was dismissed when the 

trial court determined – on defendant's motion – that the contract by which 

plaintiff purchased a motor vehicle from defendant contained an agreement to 

arbitrate disputes. Plaintiff appealed that disposition, and we affirmed. Perez 

v. Leonard Auto Enters., Inc., No. A-2165-16 (App. Div. May 7, 2018).

Over a year later, in August 2019, plaintiff initiated a proceeding with the 

American Arbitration Association and sent notice of her demand for arbitration 

to both defendant by certified mail and the attorney who represented defendant 
3

A-3700-19T3

in the earlier suit. AAA sent multiple notices concerning defendant's failure to 

pay arbitration fees to the same defense attorney. When defendant failed to 

respond to the claim or pay AAA's fees by the end of September 2019, AAA 

informed plaintiff that its consumer arbitration rules allowed her to sue again in 

an appropriate court.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this action in early October 2019. 

Defendant was personally served but failed to respond to the complaint in a 

timely fashion. Default was entered and, on December 5, 2019, plaintiff moved 

for the entry of default judgment. The motion was also served on defendant, 

which did not oppose the motion but instead tardily sought its adjournment.

1

 On 

the motion's January 10, 2020 return date, default judgment was entered in 

plaintiff's favor and against defendant in the amount of $191,514.06, which 

consisted of $42,175.38 in damages – trebled to $126,526.14 under the 

Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 – and $64,987.92 in counsel fees.

1

 Defendant's current counsel reached out to plaintiff's counsel in the days 

preceding the motion's return date. They finally spoke on the return date, at 

which time plaintiff's counsel consented to an adjournment. Defense counsel 

then sent a letter to the motion judge the afternoon of the return date asking for 

an adjournment. Later, when he ruled on defendant's motion for reconsideration, 

the judge explained that he did not adjourn the motion because the request was 

received after he had ruled on the motion.
4

A-3700-19T3

Three weeks later, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment. Its

motion was based on the certifications of two attorneys affiliated with the law 

firm currently representing defendant. One certification merely attached a 

"LinkedIn" profile of the attorney who appeared for defendant in the 

proceedings that resulted in an order compelling arbitration. That profile 

suggested that, in May 2017, the attorney left the law firm that had previously 

represented defendant. This fact was offered as a suggestion that notices sent to 

that attorney by AAA were sent in error, but neither this certification nor 

anything else in the record suggested that defendant ever advised plaintiff or 

AAA of this change of attorneys. That fact, however, is of passing interest; the 

proceedings in the 2016 lawsuit, including the prior appeal to this court, and 

AAA's brief involvement with these parties, are prologue but not particularly 

relevant to the current proceedings.

In its Rule 4:50 motion, defendant relied on a second certification from 

another attorney, who recounted current defense counsel's attempts to seek and 

obtain plaintiff's consent to an adjournment of the motion to enter default 

judgment. That certification also raised questions about plaintiff's motion to 

enter default judgment, focusing on the award to plaintiff of counsel fees on 
5

A-3700-19T3

matters – the arbitration issues – on which plaintiff lost.2 Beyond these things, 

the certification stated, without further explanation or elaboration: "Defendant 

should be afforded the opportunity to defend on the merits of the matter and file 

an answer."

Defendant's presentation in its Rule 4:50 motion was inadequate in several 

respects. In particular, nowhere in its moving papers did defendant explain or 

attempt to excuse its failure to timely respond to the complaint. It described 

only the attempts to obtain an adjournment of the motion to enter default 

judgment. It did not explain why defendant did not reach out to current counsel 

sooner so that counsel could file a timely response to the motion to enter default 

judgment. In addition, other than to criticize the counsel fees awarded as part 

of the default judgment, defendant's Rule 4:50 motion did not outline or even 

suggest a meritorious defense.

After the Rule 4:50 motion was denied, defendant moved for 

reconsideration, this time providing a certification executed by its general 

2

 That assertion posed a legitimate concern about the default judgment itself. 

The motion to enter default judgment was also supported only by an attorney's 

certification that, a fortiori, was not based on personal knowledge – a 

requirement of Rule 1:6-6 – and conveyed no reliable facts about the cause of 

action or the damages allegedly incurred by plaintiff, with the exception of 

plaintiff's attorney fees. Higgins v. Thurber, 413 N.J. Super. 1, 21 n.19 (App. 

Div. 2010), aff'd, 205 N.J. 227 (2011).
6

A-3700-19T3

manager, who described defendant's alleged meritorious defense: LoJack 

systems are not installed by the manufacturer; they are installed after purchase,

the contract obligated plaintiff to make an appointment for the installation, and 

plaintiff never scheduled the appointment. In attempting to demonstrate 

excusable neglect, defendant again focused on the AAA proceedings and what 

it believed was AAA's mistaken service of notices on an attorney that had ceased 

representing defendant. The general manager's certification provided no 

explanation for defendant's failure to timely respond to the complaint or timely 

respond to the motion to enter default judgment. And there was no explanation 

why these factual assertions were not submitted when defendant first moved 

under Rule 4:50. This motion was also denied.

In appealing, defendant argues the motion judge erred in: (1) "denying 

the consent of the parties to adjourn plaintiff's motion [to enter default 

judgment]"; (2) "denying [defendant's] motion to vacate default"; (3) "granting 

[plaintiff's] attorney's fees" in entering default judgment; (4) denying 

defendant's "motion for reconsideration"; and (5) calculating plaintiff's damages 

when entering default judgment.

We find no merit in defendant's first argument. The decision to grant or 

deny an adjournment request – with or without consent – is a matter falling 
7

A-3700-19T3

within the "sound discretion" of the trial court that we will not second-guess

"unless it appears an injustice has been done." Allegro v. Afton Village Corp., 

9 N.J. 156, 161 (1952). Despite defendant's attempt to suggest otherwise,

3

the 

record reveals that the judge ruled on the motion prior to his receipt of the 

request for an adjournment; he was not obligated to undo things once the 

adjournment request was received.

Defendant's third and fifth arguments address the default judgment itself. 

Although presenting legitimate concerns,4these arguments are premature. An 

aggrieved litigant must first demonstrate entitlement to relief from a default 

judgment before arguing some defect in the process that led to its entry or the 

content of the judgment itself. See Haber v. Haber, 253 N.J. Super. 413, 416 

(App. Div. 1992) (holding that a defendant cannot directly appeal a default 

judgment but must first seek relief from it under Rule 4:50).

5

3 Defense counsel asserted that, on January 6, 2020, defendant advised her of 

the motion for entry of default judgment returnable on January 10, 2020, and yet 

the request for an adjournment – according to defense counsel – was first made 

at 1:45 p.m. on January 10.

4 See n.2, above.

5 For the same reason, defendant's first argument in this appeal may also be 

viewed as premature.
8

A-3700-19T3

We, thus, focus on defendant's second and fourth arguments and the 

pivotal question of whether the motion judge properly exercised his discretion 

in denying relief from the default judgment. The familiar standard requires that 

courts view Rule 4:50 motions "with great liberality" and "tolerate[]" "every 

reasonable ground for indulgence . . . to the end that a just result is reached." 

Marder v. Realty Constr. Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313, 319 (App. Div.), aff'd, 43 N.J. 

508 (1964); see also Morristown Hous. Auth. v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283-84 

(1994); Mancini v. EDS, 132 N.J. 330, 334 (1993); Reg'l Constr. Corp. v. Ray, 

364 N.J. Super. 534, 540-41 (App. Div. 2003). We have already pointed out the 

inadequacies of defendant's first motion. It was based only on certifications of 

attorneys who lacked personal knowledge contrary to the requirements of Rule

1:6-6, and it failed to explain why defendant neglected to timely respond to the 

complaint or whether defendant had a meritorious defense to the claim other 

than what was said about the counsel fee award. Only when defendant moved 

for reconsideration did it attempt to assert a meritorious defense to plaintiff's 

claim.

The motion judge denied defendant's second motion by applying the 

framework courts utilize in determining the propriety of reconsideration. See

Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (holding that 
9

A-3700-19T3

reconsideration should be granted only if the movant can show that the prior 

decision was based on a palpably incorrect or irrational basis or that the court 

failed to appropriately consider probative material). We would agree that when 

viewing this motion as one which sought reconsideration of the earlier ruling –

and to be sure, that is how the motion was labeled – the denial of reconsideration 

was well within the judge's discretion.

But we conclude that the judge should have viewed defendant's second 

motion more expansively. The situation is somewhat similar to what occurred 

in Professional Stone, Stucco & Siding Applicators, Inc. v. Carter, 409 N.J. 

Super. 64 (App. Div. 2009). There, the defendant's initial Rule 4:50 motion was 

hastily filed in an attempt to ward off the plaintiff's active collection efforts, id.

at 69; here, defendant's initial motion was filed less than three weeks after 

defendant was denied an adjournment of the motion to enter default judgment. 

The initial motion in Professional Stone was properly found inadequate for much 

the same reason defendant's initial motion here was inadequate. Id. at 67. The 

defendant in Professional Stone then filed a second motion with a more fulsome 

explanation of the defendant's alleged defense and defendant's neglect in 

previously responding to the action. Id. at 66. We recognized in Professional 
10 A-3700-19T3

Stone that the letter and intent of our Court Rules do not preclude a second Rule

4:50 motion in those circumstances. Id. at 69. 

Defendant seems to be in a similar position as the defendants in 

Professional Stone. In that spirit, and in the spirit of the Marder standard, 84 

N.J. Super. at 319, the judge should have viewed the reconsideration motion as 

a renewed attempt to seek relief from the default judgment and not as an attempt 

to have the judge reconsider the prior denial. If so viewed, the judge would have 

been obligated to liberally indulge defendant's assertions. And, in considering 

what defendant presented on the second motion – a certification based on 

personal knowledge that alleged a meritorious defense to plaintiff's claims – the 

judge should have granted relief.6

Having said all that, we note that gaps remain in the collective 

presentation in both motions. Defendant has yet to explain its failure to timely 

respond to the complaint or to the motion for entry of default judgment.

Defendant's efforts on the excusable-neglect front focus mainly on what they 

6 We would also note that both of defendant's motions presented legitimate 

questions about the quantum of damages awarded by way of the default 

judgment. It does not appear the judge conducted the analysis of the fee request 

required by Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 334-35 (1995), and the overall fee 

award of more than $62,000 – when the fee award should have been limited to 

the pursuit of a judgment in this action, not the prior action or the arbitration –

seems patently excessive.
11 A-3700-19T3

believe was AAA's mistake in sending notices to defendant's former attorney; 

the steps defendant failed to take in arbitration, however, have nothing to do 

with defendant's failures to respond to either the complaint or the motion for a 

default judgment.7

Notwithstanding defendant's failure or inability to demonstrate "excusable 

neglect" under Rule 4:50-1(a), the motion judge could have considered 

defendant's application under Rule 4:50-1(f), which may be used to "achieve 

equity and justice," Court Inv. Co. v. Perillo, 48 N.J. 334, 341 (1966), and will 

apply even if a defendant's failure to respond was inexcusable, Mancini, 132 

N.J. at 334; LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. DeAngelo, 464 N.J. Super. 103, 109 

(App. Div. 2020). Defendant's failures to take proper steps once it was served 

with a summons and complaint and once it was served with a motion for entry 

7 The certification supporting defendant's reconsideration motion asserted that 

the attorney to whom AAA sent its notices "was no longer representing" 

defendant and that had defendant known of the institution of the arbitration it 

"would have paid the fee to have this matter arbitrated, as . . . originally sought, 

rather than litigated in [c]ourt." As the motion judge correctly observed, there 

is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant ever advised AAA of its new 

attorney after plaintiff personally served defendant with its notice that an AAA 

arbitration had been instituted. In any event, whether AAA's disposition of the 

matter was proper and whether plaintiff had the right to reinstitute its causes of 

action in the trial court by way of a new complaint are no longer in question. 

The fact that defendant may have been confused or in the dark about what 

happened in arbitration is its own fault. In any event, as explained earlier, all 

that was prologue to defendant's failure to timely respond to this action. 
12 A-3700-19T3

of default judgment – even if inexcusable – were neither calculated nor willful. 

Mancini, 132 N.J. at 336; Nowosleska v. Steele, 400 N.J. Super. 297, 305 (App. 

Div. 2008). And the delays resulting from defendant's failure to wake up to this 

suit have not been lengthy, nor have they caused plaintiff any prejudice beyond 

the counsel fees incurred and the costs expended.

To be sure, defendant did not invoke Rule 4:50-1(f) in either of its trial 

court motions, but courts must be willing to disregard labels and focus on the 

substance of what is argued. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garden State Surgical Ctr., 

L.L.C., 413 N.J. Super. 513, 523-24 (App. Div. 2010); see also Baumann v. 

Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380, 392-94 (1984); Applestein v. United Bd. & Carton Corp., 

60 N.J. Super. 333, 348-49 (Ch. Div.), aff'd o.b., 33 N.J. 72 (1960). When a 

movant fails to present evidence that would support any of the first five 

subsections of Rule 4:50-1, courts are not foreclosed from considering the 

availability of relief under the sixth subsection, the so-called catchall provision. 

See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 484 (2012). Although 

subsection (f) should be applied "sparingly" and "in exceptional situations" 

when necessary to prevent an injustice, Little, 135 N.J. at 289; see also Cmty. 

Realty Mgmt., Inc. v. Harris, 155 N.J. 212, 237 (1998), the ultimate goal of our 

court rules remains the promotion of the fair and efficient administration of 
13 A-3700-19T3

justice – a goal that prefers the disposition of cases on their merits rather than 

procedural missteps, Ragusa v. Lau, 119 N.J. 276, 283-84 (1990); Crescent Park 

Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 (1971);

Tumarkin v. Friedman, 17 N.J. Super. 20, 27 (App. Div. 1951). Defendant has 

presented meritorious defenses addressing both its liability and the damages 

plaintiff seeks. The record also reveals that the default judgment was inherently 

defective in that it was based on the factual statements of an attorney who lacked 

personal knowledge of everything but plaintiff's counsel fees. And, as to 

counsel fees, the judgment included a fee award that inexplicably includes

compensation for plaintiff's erroneous attempt to avoid arbitration in the trial 

court and in this court in the first action. To be sure, defendant has failed to 

present an explanation for its failure to respond to the complaint or the motion 

to enter default judgment. But the delay this neglect has caused has been 

relatively brief, the cause for the delay has not been alleged to be willful or 

calculated, and any damage done to plaintiff may be redressed through the 

imposition of "such terms as are just." R. 4:50-1; ATFH Real Prop. v. Winberry 

Realty, 417 N.J. Super. 518, 526-29 (App. Div. 2010).

We reverse the orders under review and remand for the entry of an order 

vacating the default judgment and allowing defendant to file a pleading 
14 A-3700-19T3

responsive to the complaint. We do not foreclose the trial court's consideration 

of the imposition of conditions, under Rule 4:50-1, for granting defendant relief 

from the default judgment. We do not retain jurisdiction.