DOROTHY GONZALEZ VS. MARK MICHALSKIÂ (L-872-14, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3618-15T3
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 7, 2017Background
- Dorothy Gonzalez sued her former next-door neighbors, Mark and Laura Michalski, alleging repeated harassment (e.g., spotlight into window, fence encroachment, dog feces on property line, threatened arson) and sought compensatory/punitive damages and fees under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.
- Defendants served a dispositive motion in limine on the morning of the sixth scheduled trial date seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim; the trial court heard argument and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Gonzalez had moved, eight months after filing, for leave to amend to add an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the motion was unopposed but was denied by the trial court as causing undue delay.
- The Appellate Division concluded the trial court erred by considering an untimely dispositive motion on the day of trial, depriving Gonzalez of due process absent extraordinary circumstances or consent.
- The panel also held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the unopposed motion to amend where no new facts or parties were added and no additional discovery was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could consider a dispositive Rule 4:6-2(e) motion served the morning of trial and dismiss the complaint | Gonzalez argued consideration of an untimely dispositive motion at trial deprived her of due process absent extraordinary circumstances or consent | Michalski argued dismissal was proper because Gonzalez's claims lacked merit | Court reversed: untimely dispositive motion on day of trial should not be entertained; dismissal deprived plaintiff of due process (Cho controlling) |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Gonzalez leave to amend to add IIED after the complaint was filed | Gonzalez argued amendment was unopposed, raised no new facts/parties, would not require additional discovery, and should be liberally allowed under R. 4:9-1 | Michalski argued amendment would delay resolution (trial had prior dates) | Court reversed: denial was an abuse of discretion; unopposed amendment should have been allowed absent undue prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div.) (untimely dispositive motions at trial normally violate due process)
- Kernan v. One Washington Park Urban Renewal Assocs., 154 N.J. 437 (1998) (motions to amend pleadings should be granted liberally)
- G & W, Inc. v. Borough of East Rutherford, 280 N.J. Super. 507 (App. Div.) (amendments should generally be allowed even if merits are uncertain)
- Interchange State Bank v. Rinaldi, 303 N.J. Super. 239 (App. Div.) (trial court may deny amendment when claim is legally unsustainable, but must analyze that issue)