Opinion ID: 806790
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Prejudice to Withum and Lindabury

Text: The District Court held that Withum and Lindabury suffered prejudice by filing and defending their motions to dismiss. Nuveen argues that its noncompliance did not cause them prejudice because the complaint was sufficiently detailed to provide them with reasonable notice of its claims. Thus, it contends, Withum and Lindabury were prepared for the suit after receiving the complaint. In addition, Nuveen asserts that Withum and Lindabury did not incur undue additional defense costs in filing and litigating the motions to dismiss the complaint. See Fink v. Thompson, 772 A.2d 386, 394 (N.J. 2001) (holding that an affidavit that inadvertedly excluded the name of a defendant-professional involved in the malpractice action did not prejudice the defendant- 42 professional, and noting that “permitting plaintiff’s case to proceed would not result in undue additional defense costs”). We agree that the incurrence of additional costs to bring a motion to dismiss based on the failure to file the requisite affidavit is not sufficient to cause prejudice to a defendant. If the costs of filing and defending the motion to dismiss were sufficiently prejudicial to preclude a showing of substantial compliance, few plaintiffs could prove substantial compliance. Yet courts have found substantial compliance in a variety of circumstances. See, e.g., Burns v. Belafsky, 766 A.2d 1095, 1101 (N.J. 1999) (holding that failure to timely file affidavit was not prejudicial because it was “simply too early in the litigation for that claim to be credible”); Mayfield v. Cmty. Med. Assocs., P.A., 762 A.2d 237, 243 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (stating that, where the affidavit was timely filed but served late, “there has been no showing of prejudice to defendants that would outweigh the strong preference for adjudication on the merits rather than final disposition for procedural reasons”). Nuveen provided Withum and Lindabury with a complaint that was detailed enough to place them on notice of the asserted claims without the affidavits. The only apparent prejudice they suffered was the cost of filing and defending the motions to dismiss. This is not sufficient prejudice to preclude a finding of substantial compliance. Nonetheless, Nuveen still must demonstrate the other four factors.