168 A.3d 93
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2017Background
- May 16, 2016: Plaintiff filed a domestic-violence complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order alleging past physical abuse and current harassing communications by defendant.
- Allegations included defendant emailing and calling about the parties' child, calling plaintiff’s employer (including using an alias), and a police officer responding after a call defendant allegedly placed.
- On the day of the May 31 final hearing, defendant filed an in limine motion (unsupported by sworn affidavit) seeking dismissal; the motion was not clearly labeled under any rule.
- The judge heard oral argument from counsel but took no testimony, received no sworn proofs, and granted the motion, concluding plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof.
- The Appellate Division reversed, reinstated the TRO, and remanded for a new final hearing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a last-minute in limine dispositive motion was procedurally proper in a domestic-violence final hearing | Fisher argued the motion deprived her of meaningful notice and opportunity to respond; in limine dispositive motions are disfavored | Defendant argued the complaint failed to state a claim or otherwise warranted summary disposition | Court held the in limine dispositive motion was improper and consideration deprived plaintiff of due process; reversal required |
| Whether the motion should be treated as a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim | Fisher relied on complaint allegations as adequate to plead harassment/domestic violence | Defendant contended the pleadings did not allege harassment sufficient for relief | Court held pleadings alleged harassment under the statute; if treated as Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal would be improper without leave to amend and thus reversal required |
| Whether summary disposition was supportable absent sworn factual record | Fisher argued plaintiff’s allegations and reasonable inferences must be credited; no sworn proof supported defendant’s benign explanation | Defendant characterized communications as innocent and focused on child-welfare motive, without affidavit or testimony | Court held summary disposition required sworn evidence; judge erred in accepting defendant’s factual characterization on a fact‑barren record and failed to draw inferences for plaintiff |
| Appropriate remedy and next step | Fisher sought reinstatement of TRO and new hearing | Defendant sought final dismissal | Court reversed dismissal, reinstated TRO, and remanded for a final hearing before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Cho v. Trinitas Reg'l Med. Ctr., 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2015) (disfavors last-minute dispositive in limine motions)
- Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Constr. Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 2001) (court rules do not permit dispositive motions at trial outset)
- State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 2014) (in limine motions addressing evidentiary issues are disfavored)
- Bellardini v. Krikorian, 222 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 1988) (in limine motions should be heard sparingly)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standards and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (sensitivity in adjudicating domestic-violence matters)
- N.B. v. S.K., 435 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2014) (considering allegations of past domestic violence in the context of present claims)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (Rule 4:6-2(e) may not address ability to prove allegations; leave to amend required before dismissal)
- Henderson v. Bannan, 256 F.2d 363 (6th Cir.) (1958) (swift justice requires fairness; expedience cannot override due process)