Murray v. Comcast Corp.
201 A.3d 96
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Murray sued Comcast and individual supervisors in 2016 under CEPA and the LAD; amended complaint added a breach-of-contract count.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration; the trial court granted that motion on June 9, 2017, and stayed the litigation.
- The June 9 order was not transmitted to counsel until June 30, 2017; Murray mailed a Rule 4:49-2 motion for reconsideration dated July 20, 2017, which the clerk received and filed on July 26, 2017.
- Defendants argued Murray’s reconsideration motion was timely because the 20-day Rule 4:49-2 clock runs from service of the order; plaintiff argued otherwise.
- The trial court granted reconsideration on November 16, 2017, vacating the arbitration order; defendants appealed and this court sua sponte questioned subject-matter jurisdiction under governing arbitration-appeal precedent.
- The Appellate Division held Murray’s motion was untimely under Rule 4:49-2 (service not within 20 days) and concluded the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant reconsideration; it vacated the November 16 order and remanded to proceed to arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Law Division had subject-matter jurisdiction to decide Murray's Rule 4:49-2 motion to reconsider the order compelling arbitration | Murray contended the 20-day period begins on service of the order and his July 20 motion was timely | Defendants argued Murray’s motion was untimely because the court did not receive/file it within 20 days of service; appellate rule prohibits enlarging that period | Held: Motion was untimely (service not completed within 20 days); trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration; November 16 order vacated and case remanded to arbitration |
| Whether the 20-day limit in Rule 4:49-2 runs from entry or service of the order | Murray relied on service as the start date | Defendants agreed service starts the clock but showed service and filing dates meant Murray missed the deadline | Held: The 20-day period runs from service (not entry), but Murray failed to effect service/filing within that period |
| Whether courts may relax the Rule 4:49-2 time limit | Murray sought relief despite the late filing | Defendants relied on Rule 1:3-4(c) prohibiting enlargement of the 20-day period | Held: Rule 1:3-4(c) bars enlargement; courts lack power to extend the 20-day window for Rule 4:49-2 reconsideration of final arbitration orders |
| Effect of appellate arbitration finality rule on available relief | Murray implicitly sought to defeat arbitration via reconsideration | Defendants emphasized appellate finality and need for timely appeals from arbitration orders | Held: Orders compelling arbitration are final for appeal; untimely requests for reconsideration cannot preserve jurisdiction to avoid arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Turnersville Chrysler Jeep, 453 N.J. Super. 309 (App. Div.) (addresses finality of arbitration orders and interplay with Rule 4:49-2)
- GMAC v. Pittella, 205 N.J. 572 (NJ Supreme Court) (orders compelling or denying arbitration are final for purposes of appeal)
- Petersen v. Falzarano, 6 N.J. 447 (NJ Supreme Court) (definition of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Peper v. Princeton Univ. Bd. of Trs., 77 N.J. 55 (NJ Supreme Court) (court cannot adjudicate without subject-matter jurisdiction; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent)
- Lee v. Brown, 232 N.J. 114 (NJ Supreme Court) (discusses reconsideration timing in context of interlocutory orders; noted and distinguished)