MICHAEL WILLIAMS VS. THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX NEW JERSEY (L-11416-14, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2892-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 28, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Middlesex County corrections officers) sued CFG Health Systems alleging negligent medical care of an inmate precipitated a violent incident on Dec. 7, 2012 that injured plaintiffs and led to employment consequences.
- CFG moved to dismiss the count against it, invoking statutory immunity (N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16(b)); on April 24, 2015 the trial court dismissed the CFG count with prejudice without stating reasons and denied oral argument.
- Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review unsuccessfully (request denied July 16, 2015); litigation continued against the other defendants.
- The remaining defendants and plaintiffs reported the case settled and the action was dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 10, 2018 while scheduled for trial; later disputes over settlement language led to motions to enforce and to reinstate.
- The trial court issued an order on Jan. 24, 2020 finalizing the settlement paperwork; plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Mar. 24, 2020 challenging the April 24, 2015 dismissal.
- The Appellate Division concluded the appeal was untimely because the case was finally disposed of on Sept. 10, 2018 (triggering the 45‑day appeal clock), and dismissed the appeal without addressing plaintiffs’ substantive challenges to the April 24, 2015 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/finality of appeal | The April 24, 2015 dismissal of CFG was a final, appealable order; appeal was timely as to that order | The case was finally disposed on Sept. 10, 2018 (settlement/dismissal of all claims), so the 45‑day appeal period ran from that date | Appeal untimely; dismissal affirmed because final judgment date was Sept. 10, 2018 |
| Effect of settlement paperwork dispute | Plaintiffs treated the Sept. 10, 2018 dismissal as nonfinal due to unresolved settlement language and sought reinstatement | Defendants/CFG said the Sept. 10, 2018 dismissal reflected a binding settlement; later judge only enforced form details | Court held the settlement resolved all claims on Sept. 10, 2018; remaining disputes were about form/enforcement, not merits |
| Procedural/merits defects in April 24, 2015 dismissal (no oral argument; no findings; pleading/ discovery issues) | Court erred by dismissing with prejudice without argument or findings and before discovery; pleading standards and conversion to summary judgment were mishandled | CFG defended on statutory immunity and merits of dismissal | Court did not reach merits; declined to consider these claims because appeal was untimely |
| Preclusive effect of prior Appellate Division procedural order (June 18, 2020) | Plaintiffs argued the earlier order refusing to dismiss the appeal made dismissal inappropriate now | CFG argued full briefing and argument permit reconsideration of timeliness on the merits | Prior abbreviated order not dispositive; on full briefing the court dismissed the appeal as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., 421 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 2011) (explains when a judgment is final and appealable and distinguishes apparent finality from judgments leaving substantive issues for resolution)