Court Opinion

ID: 9929840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 15:05:59.971848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:56:00.074055
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-0485-22

NORTH JERSEY HIP AND
KNEE CENTER,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JANET QUEVEDO and
AMY L. PETERSON,

          Defendants/Third-Party
          Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

AIMAN RIFAI, D.O.,

     Third-Party Defendant-
     Respondent.
_________________________

                   Submitted January 17, 2024 – Decided February 5, 2024

                   Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-1905-21.
            Michael S. Harrison, attorney for appellant (Stacy B.
            Fronapfel, on the briefs).

            Margolis Edelstein, attorneys for respondent Amy L.
            Peterson (Kyle L. Wu, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Plaintiff North Jersey Hip and Knee Center, P.C. appeals from a July 18,

2022 order denying its motion to reinstate its complaint that had been dismissed

with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Rule 4:23-

2(b), and a September 16, 2022 order which denied reconsideration. After a

review of the arguments on appeal, the record, and the applicable law, we

reverse and remand because a sanction short of dismissal was warranted.

                                        I.

      We discern the relevant facts and procedural history from the record. This

matter involved a letter of protection dispute arising from $183,107.30 in

medical bills allegedly owed for services plaintiff rendered to Janet Quevedo

after an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleges it received a letter of protection

from defendant Amy Peterson, Esq., who was Quevedo's personal injury

attorney.

      Plaintiff treated Quevedo for her injuries from October 2016 to November

2018. In February 2017, defendant advised plaintiff's physician, Aiman Rifai,

                                                                            A-0485-22
                                        2
D.O., by letter that she legally represented Quevedo in a personal injury action.

The letter acknowledged plaintiff's treatment, noted Quevedo did not have

"personal auto insurance," and advised that any medical "itemized bills" were to

be submitted to the provided insurance company "directly for fee scheduling."

The letter further asserted defendant "w[ould] protect [plaintiff's] customary and

reasonable fees to the extent . . . available from third party recovery when the

case [wa]s concluded provided [plaintiff] timely forwarded to [defendant's]

office a copy" of the bills submitted.

       On June 10, 2021, plaintiff filed a five-count complaint against Quevedo

and defendant seeking damages for the billed medical services, attorney's fees,

interest, and costs. On July 15, defendant filed an answer, counterclaim, and

third-party complaint against Dr. Rifai.      Plaintiff filed an answer to the

counterclaim and Dr. Rifai answered the third-party complaint. On August 30,

defendant filed an amended answer.

      On October 6, defendant served plaintiff, "via email only," with a request

for answers to interrogatories, a notice to produce, and a request for admissions.

Defendant also moved to change tracks and to extend the discovery end date.

On October 22, the motion judge granted the request, transferred the matter from

Track I to Track II, and ordered a March 24, 2022 discovery end date. The judge

                                                                            A-0485-22
                                         3
thereby shortened the discovery period and the delineated discovery dates

requested, requiring written discovery be provided "no later than" November 30,

and depositions to "take place no later than" December 30. The judge also

commented, "Nothing[]has been done to date . . . It is really not that

complicated."

      Having not received the requested written discovery, on January 18, 2022,

defendant served via email a good faith deficiency letter in compliance with

Rule 1:6-2(c). Two days later, defendant served plaintiff via email and regular

mail with a deposition notice of Dr. Rifai, scheduled for February 17. On

February 16, one day before the noticed deposition, plaintiff informed defendant

via email that Dr. Rifai was unavailable.

      On March 2, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) and with prejudice pursuant to Rules 4:23-4 and

4:23-2(b)(3), which plaintiff opposed. A new motion judge granted the motion

to dismiss the complaint without prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) for failure

to provide discovery, denied dismissal with prejudice, and compelled Dr. Rifai

"to appear for deposition within [thirty] days of the date of [the] order" or else

"face sanctions as permitted by the rules of the court up to and including

                                                                            A-0485-22
                                        4
dismissal with prejudice." The complaint was apparently dismissed as well

against Quevedo, who was in default for failing to file an answer.

      On April 13, defendant served plaintiff via email and regular mail with a

notice of deposition for April 21. On April 20, one day before the noticed

deposition, plaintiff informed defendant that Dr. Rifai was unavailable. On May

22, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:23-

4, failure to appear for a deposition, and Rule 4:23-3, failure to comply with a

court order, which plaintiff did not oppose. Before the motion's May 25 return

date, plaintiff served answers to the written discovery requests.

      On May 27, the judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Citing

Rule 4:23-2(b)(3), the judge found plaintiff "elected to willfully ignore [the]

court's directive" and therefore dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. 1 On

July 18, the judge denied plaintiff's motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate the

complaint. Thereafter, plaintiff moved for reconsideration.

      On September 16, the judge issued an oral decision and entered an order

denying reconsideration.    The judge found defendant "failed to respond to

1
  We recognize that while a motion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 4:23-
5(a)(2) would have been premature as the requisite sixty days since the order
dismissing the complaint without prejudice had not passed, defendant separately
moved to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 4:23-2(b)(3).
                                                                            A-0485-22
                                        5
communications concerning discovery and court orders" and, in the present

motion, failed to "provide[] any reasons as to why it did not respond to discovery

communications." Default judgment was entered against Quevedo on January

13, 2023.

      Before us, plaintiff argues the judge abused her discretion by failing to

consider alternative sanctions and imposing the ultimate sanction of a dismissal

with prejudice; and imposing an unjust and unreasonable sanction.

                                        II.

      "[T]he standard of review for dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for

discovery misconduct is whether the trial court abused its discretion." Abtrax

Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995). Moreover, 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)).

      In addressing the appropriate penalty for failing to abide by an order, "the

court must . . . carefully weigh what sanction is the appropriate one, choosing

the approach that imposes a sanction consistent with fundamental fairness to

both parties."   Williams v. Am. Auto Logistics, 226 N.J. 117, 125 (2016)

(alteration in original) (quoting Robertet Flavors, Inc. v. Tri-Form Constr., Inc.,

                                                                             A-0485-22
                                        6
203 N.J. 252, 282-83 (2010)). In its selection of a sanction, a court must

consider "[t]he varying levels of culpability of delinquent parties." Georgis v.

Scarpa, 226 N.J. Super. 244, 251 (App. Div. 1988). "The extent to which [one

party] has impaired [the other's] case may guide the court in determining

whether less severe sanctions will suffice."         Williams, 226 N.J. at 125

(alterations in original) (quoting Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J.

100, 116 (2005)). When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, courts

"should assess the facts, including the willfulness of the violation, t he ability of

plaintiff to produce the [evidence], the proximity of trial, and prejudice to the

adversary, and apply the appropriate remedy." Casinelli v. Manglapus, 181 N.J.

354, 365 (2004).

      The "ultimate sanction of dismissal" is to be used "only sparingly."

Abtrax Pharms., 139 N.J. at 514 (quoting Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245, 253

(1982)). "If a lesser sanction than dismissal suffices to erase the prejudice to

the non-delinquent party, dismissal of the complaint is not appropriate and

constitutes an abuse of discretion." Georgis, 226 N.J. Super. at 251. "The

dismissal of a party's cause of action, with prejudice, is drastic and is generally

not to be invoked except in those cases in which the order for discovery goes to

the very foundation of the cause of action, or where the refusal to comply is

                                                                              A-0485-22
                                         7
deliberate and contumacious." Abtrax Pharms., 139 N.J. at 514 (quoting Lang

v. Morgan's Home Equip. Corp., 6 N.J. 333, 339 (1951)). "It is well-settled that

the sanction of dismissal with prejudice for a procedural violation must be a

recourse of last resort." Conrad v. Michelle & John, Inc., 394 N.J. Super. 1, 11

(App. Div. 2007) (citing Tucci v. Tropicana Casino & Resort, Inc., 364 N.J.

Super. 48, 52 (App. Div. 2003)).

      The failure to comply with an order to produce discovery pursuant to Rule

4:23-2(b) allows for dismissal "with or without prejudice":

            If a party . . . fails to obey an order to provide or permit
            discovery, including an order made under R. 4:23-1, the
            court in which the action is pending may make such
            orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among
            others the following:

            (1) An order that the matters regarding which the order
            was made or any other designated facts shall be taken
            to be established for the purposes of the action in
            accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the
            order;

            (2) An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to
            support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or
            prohibiting the introduction of designated matters in
            evidence;

            (3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or
            staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or
            dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof
            with or without prejudice, or rendering a judgment by
            default against the disobedient party;

                                                                           A-0485-22
                                         8
            (4) In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in addition
            thereto, an order treating as a contempt of court the
            failure to obey any orders.

            In lieu of the foregoing orders or in addition thereto, the
            court shall require the party failing to obey the order to
            pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees,
            caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the
            failure was substantially justified or that the other
            circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

            [R. 4:23-2(b).]

                                       III.

      It bears noting from the inception that we do not condone the dilatory pace

at which plaintiff prosecuted its action and or its failure to respond to discovery

demands. As plaintiff readily acknowledged, "its failures in timely providing

discovery should[ not] have gone unsanctioned." Nevertheless, we concur with

plaintiff's argument that the judge erroneously dismissed its complaint with

prejudice, under Rule 4:23-2(b)(3), for failing to comply with the judge's March

23, 2022 order when lesser sanctions were available.

      As the judge correctly recited in her brief written statement of reasons

accompanying the May 27 order, the motion to dismiss was unopposed and

plaintiff's representative had canceled the noticed deposition. However, the

judge failed to address at any point that plaintiff had served an untimely April

                                                                             A-0485-22
                                        9
13, 2022 deposition notice on defendant. The notice was served only eight days

before the scheduled deposition date of April 21—despite the requirement that

"not less than [ten]-days['] notice" be provided pursuant to Rule 4:14-2(a).2

Notably, April 21 was the last day to complete the deposition in accordance with

the judge's March 23 order. The judge's March 23 order did not schedule a

specific deposition date or permit a "shorten[ed] . . . time for taking the

deposition." R. 4:14-2(b). Thus, by the date defendant served the deposition

notice, there was insufficient time to provide notice under the Rule and to

comply with the judge's order. In her oral reconsideration decision, the judge

stated plaintiff had "proper and effective notice from defendant['s] . . . counsel

in that regard" without further explanation. 3 There is no support for that

statement in the record. Therefore, we conclude the failure to reconsider the

2
   As we do not have the motion papers filed below, we cannot discern if
defendant's attorney made a "good faith attempt" to confer with plaintiff's
attorney to resolve scheduling Dr. Rifai's deposition in accordance with Rule
1:6-2(c).
3
    We note it is unclear whether the judge analyzed the motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 4:42-2, reconsideration of interlocutory orders.
See Lawson v. Dewar, 468 N.J. Super. 128, 134 (App. Div. 2021) (addressing
the distinctions between motions for reconsideration under Rule 4:49-2, which
"applies only to motions to alter or amend final judgments and final orders" and
"doesn't apply when an interlocutory order is challenged" pursuant to Rule 4:42-
2).

                                                                            A-0485-22
                                       10
ultimate sanction of dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice despite an

untimely deposition notice served on defendant and the availability of lesser

sanctions was mistaken use of discretion. See Georgis, 226 N.J. Super. at 251.

      We further observe the judge did not consider that prior to the return date

of the motion to dismiss with prejudice, plaintiff had served its answers to

interrogatories and responses to the notice to produce. The judge noted in her

oral reconsideration decision that "[p]laintiff allege[d] that it did not receive

[d]efendant's discovery requests until March 2, 2022," and had "served

[discovery], 'on or about', May 25, 2022" before the return date of the motion to

dismiss.   It appears from the record the judge gave little consideration to

counsel's representation they did not receive the two emailed discovery requests,

and that plaintiff had served the written discovery before the dismissal with

prejudice. These considerations, in addition to the untimely deposition notice,

weighed in favor of a lesser sanction.

      We also observe that when the original motion judge granted the track

change, he shortened the 300-day discovery period provided under Rule 4:24-1;

thus, less time for discovery was afforded.      See R. 4:24-1 (providing "all

proceedings referred to in [R.] 4:10-1 to [R.] 4:23-4 inclusive shall be completed

                                                                            A-0485-22
                                         11
within the time frame for each track as hereafter prescribed counting from the

date the first answer is filed" and prescribing "300 days" for "Track II").

      For these reasons, the drastic sanction of dismissal was unwarranted.

There existed lesser alternative sanctions to address plaintiff's failure to

complete the deposition. See, e.g., R. 4:23-2(b)(4) (permitting the court "require

the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses, including the

attorney's fees, caused by the failure").

      We are constrained to reverse the orders which denied plaintiff's motions

to reinstate the complaint and for reconsideration.      We remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no view regarding the

lesser sanction that should be imposed.

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                              A-0485-22
                                       12