CHARLES UDOH VS. ENTERPRISE RENTAL CAR INC. (L-4335-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1861-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charles Udoh rented a van from Enterprise; the van later broke down in North Carolina and was towed to an Enterprise branch; plaintiff received another rental but alleges his belongings left in the van were taken by Enterprise and never returned.
- Plaintiff sued Enterprise and two employees (Mattone and Turner) for breach of contract, negligence, and conversion; some claims were dismissed or resolved pretrial (Turner dismissed for lack of service; negligence claims resolved on statute-of-limitations grounds; claims against Mattone dismissed for failure to state a claim).
- The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial on remaining claims (breach of contract and loss of property). Plaintiff sought recovery of roughly $200,000 in lost property, submitted a lengthy inventory, and testified he abandoned the move when Enterprise could not transport his goods.
- Trial included impeachment with prior testimony from an unrelated earlier case, testimony from an Enterprise risk manager denying Enterprise ever agreed to ship a ‘‘van full of items,’’ and plaintiff’s exhibits (inventory) which plaintiff later claimed were lost after he was transported to a hospital during trial.
- Plaintiff asked for a mistrial when he left for medical treatment and the court proceeded with seven jurors present; six jurors ultimately deliberated and returned a unanimous 6-0 verdict for Enterprise. Plaintiff appealed alleging the court erred by sending the case to an incomplete jury and denying a mistrial; he waived appellate challenge to earlier October 17, 2014 orders by failing to brief them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by sending the case to deliberation with jurors reduced to six and denying a mistrial | Udoh argued sending the case to an "incomplete jury" after he was taken to the hospital and denying mistrial deprived him of a fair trial | Enterprise argued the court complied with Rule 1:8-2 by leaving six jurors to deliberate; Udoh’s conduct (delays, missing/withheld exhibits, disruptive tactics) justified denial of mistrial | Affirmed: six jurors deliberated (rule requires six); judge did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial given plaintiff’s conduct and prejudice to defendant |
| Whether plaintiff’s procedural/briefing deficiencies forfeited review of other trial-court orders | Udoh raised objections to October 17, 2014 orders on appeal | Enterprise stressed Udoh failed to brief or substantively argue those orders on appeal | Court held arguments waived for failure to brief; declined to consider belated issues raised in reply brief |
| Whether dismissal of claims/defendants before trial was reviewable on this appeal | Udoh did not appeal earlier dismissals (Turner administratively dismissed; Mattone dismissed for failure to state a claim) | Enterprise noted those orders were not designated in Udoh’s notice of appeal | Court noted those orders were not appealed and are not reviewable here |
| Whether trial-court conduct (various alleged improprieties) warranted reversal | Udoh listed multiple complaints (discovery, interpreters, security, evidence handling, judicial interruptions) as unfair treatment | Enterprise and record showed judge addressed trial management; many complaints were unsupported or belied by record | Court found remaining complaints without sufficient merit or contradicted by the record and declined to discuss them further |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (observing a plaintiff cannot use court process then obstruct or manipulate trial to the detriment of the defendant)
- State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to mistrial determinations)
- LaManna v. Proformance Ins., 184 N.J. 214 (trial courts should comply fully with Rule 1:8-2 on jury size)