Opinion ID: 2338715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: -II- Background of Entire Controversy Doctrine

Text: For over sixty years, it has been established in New Jersey that the entire controversy doctrine requires the mandatory joinder of all claims to a single transaction. The doctrine; which originated as an equitable common law procedural rule, see, e.g., Smith v. Red Top Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-441, 168 A. 796 (E. & A. 1933) (No principle of law is more firmly established than that a single or entire cause of action cannot be subdivided into several claims, and separate actions maintained thereon), is so deeply rooted in the administration of the judicial system that it was elevated to constitutional status. Prevratil v. Mohr, 145 N.J. 180, 187, 678 A. 2d 243 (1996). Indeed, Justice Brennan, writing for this Court, recognized that the design and purposes of some of the procedural reforms introduced by the Judicial Article of the 1947 Constitution and the implementing rules of court, were for the just and expeditious determination in a single action of the ultimate merits of an entire controversy between litigants. It is a fundamental objective of this procedural reform to avoid the delays and wasteful expense of the multiplicity of litigation which results from splitting of a controversy. [ Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 485, 103 A. 2d 9, cert. denied, 348 U.S. 835, 75 S.Ct. 58, 99 L.Ed. 659 (1954).] In Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15, 560 A. 2d 1169 (1989) (citing 2 State of New Jersey Constitutional Convention of 1947, Committee on the Judiciary Report § 11(J) at 1187 (1947)), we observed that the purposes of the doctrine include the needs of economy and the avoidance of waste, efficiency and the reduction of delay, fairness to parties, and the need for complete and final disposition through the avoidance of `piecemeal decisions.' See also Falcone v. Middlesex County Medical Soc'y, 47 N.J. 92, 94, 219 A. 2d 505 (1966) (The piecemeal litigation of fragments of a single controversy is too evident an evil to remain unchecked....) (quoting Silverstein v. Abco Vending Serv., 37 N.J. Super. 439, 449, 117 A. 2d 527 (App.Div. 1955)); Vacca v. Stika, 21 N.J. 471, 476, 122 A. 2d 619 (1956) (broadening the doctrine by requiring representative parties to assert counterclaims in one suit because otherwise a single action would be nothing more than the trigger which ... would start the chain reaction of other litigation.); Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2 on R. 4:30A(2)(1998) (citing additional joinder of claims entire controversy cases). In the interest of fairness and judicial efficiency, to sanction [one party's] holding in reserve his one available remedy for the purpose of attack in another suit, would be utterly destructive to the goals of the entire controversy doctrine. Prevratil, supra, 145 N.J. at 188-89, 678 A. 2d 243 (quoting Ajamian, supra, 14 N.J. at 489, 103 A. 2d 9). Likewise, the Appellate Division has determined that the entire controversy doctrine requires a party who has elected to hold back from the first proceeding a related component of the controversy be barred from thereafter raising it in a subsequent proceeding. Wm. Blanchard Co. v. Beach Concrete Co., 150 N.J. Super. 277, 292-93, 375 A. 2d 675 (1977); see also Mortgagelinq Corp. v. Commonwealth Land Title, 142 N.J. 336, 338, 662 A. 2d 536 (1995) (stating in context of party joinder that if a party deliberately chooses to fragment litigation court need not entertain claim against those parties omitted from prior litigation). Consistent with these goals, Rule 4:30A provides a mechanism to prevent fragmentation of litigation. That Rule states that the [n]on-joinder of claims or parties required to be joined by the entire controversy doctrine shall result in the preclusion of the omitted claims to the extent required by the entire controversy doctrine, except as otherwise provided by ... R. 4:67-4(a) (leave required for counterclaims or cross-claims in summary action). The entire controversy doctrine encompasses virtually all causes, claims, and defenses relating to a controversy. Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 16, 560 A. 2d 1169. At a minimum, all parties to a suit should assert all affirmative claims and defenses arising out of the underlying controversy. Prevratil, supra, 145 N.J. at 187, 678 A. 2d 243 (quoting Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15, 560 A. 2d 1169). Under Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15, 560 A. 2d 1169, the doctrine also includes counterclaims and cross-claims. See Ajamian, supra, 14 N.J. at 487-89, 103 A. 2d 9; see also R. 4:7-5; R. 4:27-1(b). In applying the doctrine, [i]t is the core set of facts that provides the link between distinct claims against the same parties ... and triggers the requirement that they be determined in one proceeding. DiTrolio v. Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 267-68, 662 A. 2d 494 (1995).