700 Highway 33 LLC v. Pollio
23 A.3d 446
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- 700 Highway 33 LLC owns a Millstone Township property with a commercial building built in 2003–2004.
- Cramar Electric Co. worked on the project until plaintiff terminated it; Pollio is a Cramar owner.
- Plaintiff’s 2003 action against the general contractor and several subs did not name Pollio or Cramar.
- A 2004 letter to Pollio alleged Cramar’s repeated failures caused delays and costs; Pollio denied the allegations.
- The 2004 amended complaint did not disclose Pollio or Cramar as non-parties and lacked factual details linking to the 2003 action.
- The 2003 action settled in 2008; the 2009 present action was later filed alleging, among other things, about equipment purchase and workmanship by Cramar.
- Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint in 2010; Pollio and Cramar cross-moved to dismiss under the entire controversy doctrine; trial court granted dismissal and denied amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entire controversy doctrine bars the present action | Pollio/Cramar were not properly tied to 2003 facts | The two actions involve same transactional facts and non-disclosure requires dismissal | Not barred on the record; remand for proper factual showing |
| Whether the 2003 and present actions share the same transactional facts | The claims involve different contracts and circumstances | There is a transactional linkage affecting related parties | Record insufficient to determine linkage; remand for adequate record |
| Whether the settlement of the 2003 action affects application of the doctrine | Settlement defeats entitlement to dismissal under doctrine | Settlement does not resolve whether doctrine applies to present claims | Not decided on current record; remand required to address impact of settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428 (N.J. 2011) (development of entire controversy doctrine and joinder principles)
- Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v. Cherry Hill Pain & Rehab. Inst., 389 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 2006) (equitable considerations and application in joinder/claims)
- Cogdell v. Hosp. Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7 (1990s) (governing aims of economy, fairness, and avoidance of piecemeal litigation)
- Arena v. Borough of Jamesburg, 309 N.J. Super. 106 (App. Div. 1998) (piecemeal litigation and related transactional facts)
- DiTrolio v. Antiles, 142 N.J. 253 (1995) (core facts link multiple claims to same transaction)
- Oliver v. Ambrose, 152 N.J. 383 (1998) (clarifies application of doctrine and joinder concepts)