MERVIN ALLEN VS. HAGEN CONSTRUCTION/MBA ENTERPRISESÂ JOINT VENTURE LLC(L-8048-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2759-15T3

Background

Plaintiff Mervin Allen sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and obtained a $300,000 jury verdict against the corporate defendant identified at trial as MBA Enterprises/Hagen Construction, LLC (variously labeled in filings and payroll documents).
The complaint originally named Hagen Construction, Inc.; before trial the corporate defendant moved (unopposed) to amend the corporate name to a variant that mistakenly included "Joint Venture," and Allen filed an amended complaint reflecting that name.
At trial evidence (paychecks, steward reports, subcontract documents, testimony) showed the employer used multiple name variants (e.g., "MBA/Hagen Construction, L.L.C.") and that MBA’s deceased president and Alfred Hagen formed the joint venture entity; Alfred Hagen was never sued individually.
On the last day of trial counsel clarified the correct corporate name (MBA Enterprises/Hagen Construction, LLC); the judge permitted name amendment for clarity but the jury verdict form mistakenly referenced "Hagen Construction."
After judgment Allen moved post-trial to further amend the complaint to substitute Hagen Construction, Inc. and Alfred Hagen as defendants; the trial judge denied the motion under Rule 4:9-3 as untimely and prejudicial, and this denial is the subject of Allen’s appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by denying post-trial amendment under R. 4:9-3 to add Hagen Construction, Inc. and Alfred Hagen	Allen argued the mislabeling and multiple corporate name variants justify substituting Hagen Construction, Inc. and Alfred Hagen post-trial (relation-back/newly discovered identity)	Defendants argued the employer at trial was MBA/Hagen LLC, Hagen Construction, Inc. and Alfred Hagen were not parties or proven liable and would be prejudiced by post-trial addition	Denial affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; evidence didn’t show Hagen Construction, Inc. or Alfred Hagen were the employer or had notice such that relation back would be fair
Whether defendant’s pre-trial amendment or name variance misled the court or plaintiff, invoking estoppel or res ipsa loquitur to permit amendment	Allen asserted defendants misled parties by mislabeling company as a "joint venture," estopping them from avoiding liability	Defendants acknowledged a naming mistake but maintained MBA/Hagen LLC was the employer and no prejudicial concealment occurred	Court rejected estoppel/res ipsa loquitur theories; found those doctrines inapplicable and claims meritless
Whether Bussell precedent (successor/real-party-in-interest notice) supports post-trial substitution	Allen relied on Bussell to argue related entities/owners had notice and should be treated as the real party in interest	Defendants distinguished Bussell: there, successor was involved from outset and had notice; here Hagen entities/individual did not defend or have notice	Court held Bussell inapplicable; no proven notice or involvement by Hagen Construction, Inc. or Alfred Hagen
Whether plaintiff invited the error or waived challenge by acquiescing to name amendments during trial	Allen argued he relied on corporate naming and later sought correction	Defendants pointed out Allen agreed to and pursued amendments and clarified correct LLC name during trial	Court found Allen invited/waived relief because he did not oppose and actually requested the name amendment and cannot now complain

Key Cases Cited

Fisher v. Yates, 270 N.J. Super. 458 (App. Div. 1994) (trial court’s amendment decisions under Rule 4:9-3 are reviewed for sound discretion)
Du-Wel Products v. U.S. Fire Ins., 236 N.J. Super. 349 (App. Div. 1989) (late additions to litigation may be denied when they prejudice expedition and other parties)
Keller v. Pastuch, 94 N.J. Super. 499 (App. Div. 1967) (discretionary standards for pleadings amendments)
M.C. III v. N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs., 201 N.J. 328 (2010) (doctrine of invited error bars party from challenging rulings it advocated)
Donofry v. Autotote Sys., Inc., 350 N.J. Super. 276 (App. Div. 2001) (invited error principle applied on appeal)
Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479 (1996) (invited error doctrine discussion)
Bussell v. DeWalt Products Corp., 259 N.J. Super. 499 (App. Div. 1992) (successor/real-party-in-interest may be bound when it had notice and defended from outset)