Court Opinion

ID: 9958165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 14:06:32.927223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:59.357195
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2055-22

STEVEN ANELLO and
ANELLO FENCE, LLC,

          Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

MARK J. INGBER, ESQ.,
INGBER & GELBER, LLP,
n/k/a INGBER LAW FIRM,
MICHAEL H. ANSELL, ESQ.,
ANSELL GRIMM & AARON,
P.C., and MICHAEL EINHORN,
ESQ.,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________

                   Argued November 27, 2023 – Decided April 8, 2024

                   Before Judges Gilson and Bishop-Thompson.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-3672-19.

                   Howard Nirenberg argued the cause for appellants
                   (Noel E. Schablik, PA, attorneys; Noel E. Schablik, on
                   the brief).
              Jeffrey Scott Leonard argued the cause for respondents
              Mark J. Ingber, Esq., and Ingber & Gelber, LLP (Lewis
              Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, attorneys; Jeffrey
              Scott Leonard, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiffs Steven Anello and Anello Fence, LLC appeal from the dismissal

of their complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). We reverse and

remand for the trial court to determine whether sanction and appropriate

conditions for reinstatement of the complaint should be imposed due to the

absence of any evidence that plaintiffs were advised of their attorney's lapse or

that the court made sufficient efforts to obtain plaintiffs' compliance with the

Rule.

                                         I.

        On May 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against

defendants Mark J. Ingber, Ingber & Gelber, LLP n/k/a Ingber Law Firm (Ingber

defendants); Michael H. Ansell, Esq., Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. (Ansell

defendants); and Michael Einhorn, Esq.

        On August 6, 2019, the Ingber defendants propounded a notice to produce

documents and interrogatories on plaintiffs.

        In November 2019, plaintiffs retained new counsel, filed a substitution of

counsel, and moved to file an amended complaint. The trial court denied

                                                                            A-2055-22
                                         2
plaintiffs' motion in January 2020, because a courtesy copy was not served.

Plaintiffs immediately refiled the motion, which was ultimately granted by the

court on February 24, 2020, ordering the amended complaint be filed within

fourteen days. Plaintiffs, however, did not file their amended complaint until

May 21, 2020.

      On September 9, 2020, plaintiffs provided answers to the interrogatories

propounded by the Ansell defendants, but their answers to the Ingber defendants'

interrogatories were still outstanding. Discovery initially concluded on October

18, 2020. The next day, plaintiffs moved to extend discovery, returnable in

November 2020. The Ingber defendants filed opposition to plaintiffs' motion,

asserting plaintiffs failed to timely move to extend discovery and failed to satisfy

the good cause requirement of Rule 4:24-1(c).

      Shortly thereafter, the Ingber defendants moved for summary judgment

returnable on December 4, 2020, contending plaintiffs failed to serve expert

reports. Two days before the return date of the summary judgment motion,

plaintiffs requested a two-week extension to obtain an expert report. The court

granted plaintiffs' request despite opposition from the Ingber defendants.

      In January 2021, at the oral argument on plaintiff's motion to extend

discovery, plaintiffs' counsel represented that the outstanding discovery to both

                                                                              A-2055-22
                                         3
the Ingber and Ansell defendants would be produced by the end of the month.

Following oral argument, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to extend

discovery "given the restrictions imposed by COVID-19."               The Ingber

defendants subsequently withdrew their summary judgment motion. A different

trial judge then extended fact discovery through August 31, 2021.

      As of February 2021, the Ingber defendants had not received plaintiffs'

discovery responses.    In response to a request from the Ingber defendants

counsel regarding the status of the discovery responses, plaintiffs' counsel stated

he was meeting with his clients that afternoon, February 11, 2011.

      Plaintiffs' discovery responses were not produced as of early March 2021.

Counsel for Ingber defendants made another inquiry regarding the status and

informed plaintiffs' counsel that if the discovery responses were not received by

the end of the week, a motion to dismiss without prejudice would be filed. When

the discovery responses were not served by the end of March, the Ingber

defendants moved for dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiffs' counsel did not

respond to the motion, and the court entered the order of dismissal without

prejudice on April 18, 2021.

      Sixty days later, on June 18, 2021, the Ingber defendants moved to dismiss

the amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2), returnable

                                                                             A-2055-22
                                        4
on July 9, 2021. The Ansell defendants filed a letter the same day joining the

Ingber defendants' motion. In a letter to the court two days before the return

date, plaintiffs' counsel told the court that he served "fully responsive"

interrogatory answers that day and requested the court deny the Ingber

defendants' motion. In reply to plaintiffs' opposition, the Ingber defendants

argued plaintiffs' opposition was untimely under Rule 1:6-3(a) and plaintiff did

not move to restore the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 4:23-5.

      Between June and October 2021, plaintiff did not move to reinstate the

amended complaint. The trial court heard oral argument on the Ingber and

Ansell defendants' motion to dismiss on October 19, 2021. At the outset, the

court cited Rule 4:23-5(a)(2), explaining that a motion to dismiss with prejudice

shall be granted unless a motion to vacate has been filed by the delinquent party

and either the discovery responses were provided, or exceptional circumstances

are shown to prevent dismissal. The court found plaintiffs did not file a motion

to vacate the dismissal prior to the return date. The court also found that there

was no certification that plaintiffs had been served with the order of dismissal

without prejudice as required by Rule 4:23-5(a)(1); nor was there proof that

plaintiffs had been served with an additional notification in the form prescribed

by Appendix IIB concerning the pending motion to dismiss or suppress with

                                                                           A-2055-22
                                       5
prejudice. Nevertheless, the court ultimately granted the Ingber defendants'

motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and entered a

memorializing order.

      Following the dismissal of their amended complaint, on November 26,

2021, plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice suit against defendant Noel E. Schablik,

and his law firm. The same day plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal.

                                        II.

      On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion in

dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice and failed to follow the

procedural requirements of Rule 4:23-5.

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

discovery misconduct is whether the trial court abused its discretion, a standard

that cautions appellate courts not to interfere unless injustice has been done. "

Abtrax Pharm. Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995); see also

Allegro v. Afton Village Corp., 9 N.J. 15, 161 (1952). An abuse of discretion

occurs when the trial court's "decision is made without a rational explanation,

inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible

basis."   Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184, 197 (App. Div. 2012)

                                                                             A-2055-22
                                        6
(quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

      Compliance with a two-step process is required for dismissal of a

complaint under Rule 4:23-5. First, the non-delinquent party may move for

dismissal without prejudice for noncompliance with discovery obligations. R.

4:23-5(a)(1). If the motion is granted, specific procedures for serving the order

of dismissal must be followed.      Ibid. Upon providing full and responsive

discovery, the delinquent party may move to vacate the dismissal without

prejudice "at any time before the entry of an order of dismissal . . . with

prejudice." Ibid.

      Second, if a delinquent party fails to cure its discovery delinquency, then

"the party entitled to the discovery may, after the expiration of 60 days from the

date of the order, move on notice for an order of dismissal . . . with prejudice."

R. 4:23-5(a)(2). The motion to dismiss with prejudice "shall be granted unless"

the delinquent party satisfies two requirements: (1) "a motion to vacate the

previously entered order of dismissal . . . without prejudice has been filed by the

delinquent party" and (2) "either the demanded and fully responsive discovery

has been provided or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated." Ibid. Rule

4:23-5(a) advances two objectives: (1) to compel discovery, thereby promoting

                                                                             A-2055-22
                                        7
resolution of disputes on the merits, and (2) to afford the aggrieved party the

right to seek final resolution through dismissal. St. James AME Dev. Corp. v.

City of Jersey City, 403 N.J. Super. 480, 484 (App. Div. 2008).

      Plaintiffs failed to satisfy one of those two requirements under the Rule to

avert dismissal. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to vacate the previously entered

order of dismissal without prejudice. From the record, we accept that there was

a bona fide dispute concerning the sufficiency of plaintiff's interrogatory

answers.

      Nevertheless, we discern from the record that plaintiffs were unaware of

their attorney's multiple missteps.     Had the record shown plaintiffs were

apprised of the pending dismissal motions, we would have no hesitation in

affirming the order of dismissal with prejudice. However, plaintiffs' counsel

patently failed to comply with the obligation to inform plaintiffs of both the

Ingber and Ansell defendants' efforts to dismiss their lawsuit; and the trial

court's effort to obtain the attorney's compliance was insufficient.

      We are, therefore, constrained to reverse the order dismissing the

complaint with prejudice, because plaintiffs' counsel neglected to notify them

that their lawsuit was on the verge of dismissal. Plaintiff's counsel was obliged

to serve the original order of dismissal without prejudice on plaintiffs. R. 4:23-

                                                                            A-2055-22
                                        8
5(a)(1). There is nothing in the record demonstrating that the required notice

was served. Moreover, plaintiffs' counsel was obliged to file and serve an

affidavit with the court, seven days before the return date of the motion to

dismiss with prejudice, stating that plaintiffs received the first order, and was

notified that a second motion was then pending to dismiss their cause with

prejudice. No such affidavit is in the record.

      Under the Rule, the trial court was required to "take some action to obtain

compliance with the requirements of the rule before entering an order of

dismissal . . . ." A&M Farm & Garden Ctr. v. Am. Sprinkler Mech., LLC, 423

N.J. Super. 528, 539 (App. Div. 2012); R. 4:23-5(a)(3).         The court noted

plaintiffs' counsel failed to file the required affidavit. We discern from the

record that plaintiffs' counsel did not provide the court with the basis for it to

make an informed decision as to whether plaintiffs' rights had been adequately

protected. A&M Farm & Garden Ctr., 423 N.J. at 539. Dismissal with prejudice

is the "last and least favorable option" available to a judge. Il Grande v.

DiBenedetto, 366 N.J. Super. 597, 624 (App. Div. 2004). Therefore, the trial

court is obliged to pay "meticulous attention . . . to those provisions which are

intended to afford a measure of protection to the party who is faced with the

                                                                            A-2055-22
                                        9
ultimate litigation disaster of termination of his cause." Zimmerman v. United

Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 260 N.J. Super. 368, 376-77 (App. Div. 1992).

      We remand for the court to consider anew the Ingber defendants' motion

to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, while allowing defendants to

supplement their motion papers as they deem appropriate, and allowing

plaintiffs to file any additional supplemental papers they deem appropriate. The

court shall establish a reasonable schedule for the filing of any supplemental

papers and for oral argument on the motion. If, on remand, plaintiffs' counsel

fails to serve the original order of dismissal without prejudice on plaintiff s, see

R. 4:23-5(a)(1), or "fails to file and serve the affidavit required by [Rule 4:23-

5(a)(3)], or fails to appear on the return date of the motion to dismiss," the court

shall comply with the requirements of Rule 4:23-5(a)(3) in its disposition of the

Ingber defendants' motion.

      On remand, plaintiffs' counsel's past missteps, as well as any missteps that

occur following remand, "may be adequately addressed by the imposition of

other appropriate sanctions, such as attorney's fees and costs, if deemed

appropriate by the trial court." A&M Farm & Garden Ctr., 423 N.J. Super. at

539. The trial court shall determine, in its discretion, "whether sanctions or

other conditions for reinstatement of the complaint should be imposed[,]"

                                                                              A-2055-22
                                        10
including service of complete and responsive answers to defendants' discovery

demands. Id. at 540.

      Lastly, plaintiffs' counsel shall serve plaintiffs with a complete copy of

our decision by regular and certified mail within seven days of its issuance, and

shall file with the trial court, and serve on all defense counsel, a certification of

such service.

      Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                               A-2055-22
                                        11