Nicholas Gallina v. Bauer Hockey, Inc., A-3283-22

Plaintiff Nicholas Gallina, then a minor, suffered facial injuries during a hockey game when the mask on his helmet (allegedly manufactured by Bauer Hockey and sold by MonkeySports) detached upon collision.
In 2019, Gallina filed a negligence and products liability complaint against both Bauer Hockey (manufacturer) and MonkeySports (retailer), as well as fictitious defendants.
The complaint was initially dismissed for a filing deficiency, later reinstated after proof of service was filed. Subsequently, in early 2020, the case was again administratively dismissed for lack of prosecution under Rule 1:13-7.
Plaintiff's counsel delayed over three years before seeking to reinstate the complaint, citing ongoing communications with Bauer's bankruptcy counsel and delays related to gathering insurance information, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.
The trial court denied the motion to reinstate, finding plaintiff failed to show “extraordinary circumstances” and that defendants would be prejudiced, particularly due to potential loss of evidence and witness unavailability.
On appeal, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court used the wrong legal standard and remanded for application of the correct “good cause” standard under Rule 1:13-7.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper Standard for Reinstatement	Only needs to show "good cause" (not "extraordinary circumstances") as the case never proceeded against any properly served defendant.	Argued that the stricter “extraordinary circumstances” standard applied due to the delay and prejudice from time lapse.	Good cause standard should have applied, not extraordinary circumstances; remanded.
Plaintiff’s Delay in Seeking Reinstatement	Delay was due to need to obtain insurance info and pandemic-related issues; continued communications justify the delay.	Delay was inexcusable; evidence lost, records destroyed, and witnesses unavailable, causing prejudice.	Remand for trial court to make factual findings on delay and fact-specific prejudice.
Service on Bauer Hockey	Service was properly effected; any defect was procedural.	Service was improper because individual served was not authorized, and is now unavailable.	Remanded for factual findings on validity and prejudice of service issues.
Claims Against MonkeySports	Motion to reinstate applies to claims against all defendants; direct claims against MonkeySports unaffected by Bauer’s disposition.	MonkeySports prejudiced by loss of sales records from 2015; delay affects ability to defend.	Trial court erred by not addressing MonkeySports specifically; remanded for separate findings.

Estate of Semprevivo v. Lahham, 468 N.J. Super. 1 (good cause, not exceptional circumstances, standard applies for reinstatement motions when case has not proceeded against properly served defendants)
Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (abuse of discretion standard for review)
Ghandi v. Cespedes, 390 N.J. Super. 193 (good cause standard must be exercised with sound discretion, liberally interpreted unless plaintiff solely at fault or defendant prejudiced)
Mason v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 233 N.J. Super. 263 (purpose of administrative dismissal is docket management, not adjudication on merits)
Rivera v. Atl. Coast Rehab. & Health Care Ctr., 321 N.J. Super. 340 (reinstatement under Rule 1:13-7 should generally be granted if plaintiff cures the problem, even after substantial passage of time)