Seoung Ouk Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical
129 A.3d 350
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Decedent Seoung Ouk Cho was treated by cardiologist Hyeun Park and underwent procedures by Dr. John Shao; he died after a cardiac arrest while awaiting catheterization in July 2009.
- Plaintiffs (Cho’s siblings Yunjin and Young Ho Jo, and fiancée Hannah Cui) sued for wrongful death, medical negligence, and breach of contract; economic damages alleged but largely unsupported by documentary proof.
- Over ~2 years, defendants obtained summary judgment dismissing claims against all defendants except Park; plaintiffs’ economic expert was excluded, and Cui’s wrongful-death claim was dismissed.
- On the second trial call, the day before jury selection, Park filed a substantive 260-page “motion in limine” (without complying with summary-judgment timing or form rules) seeking dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.
- The trial court treated and granted the motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ remaining claims with prejudice the day before jury selection; plaintiffs had less than one day to respond.
- Appellate court reversed, holding the late, dispositive motion deprived plaintiffs of due process and violated summary-judgment procedures absent extraordinary circumstances or consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dispositive motion filed and decided on the eve of trial may be treated as a motion in limine and result in dismissal | Plaintiffs argued the filing was untimely and substantive; they lacked meaningful time to respond and were entitled to a trial | Park argued a motion to dismiss may be made at any time, even at trial; exigent circumstances (file handling, prior appeals) justified late filing | Court held an untimely, dispositive motion that functions as summary judgment cannot be treated as an in limine motion; consideration and dismissal on eve of trial deprived plaintiffs of due process |
| Whether good cause/exceptions (appellate activity or counsel turnover) justified late summary judgment practice | Plaintiffs: appellate activity and counsel changes did not prevent timely filing; no good cause shown | Park: prior appeals and counsel turnover explained delay and warranted consideration | Court held the reasons did not establish good cause or extraordinary circumstances to excuse Rule 4:46 timing requirements |
| Whether failure to comply with Rule 4:46-2(a) form/notice requirements warranted reversal | Plaintiffs: movant’s noncompliance prejudiced them and the court’s review | Park: procedural noncompliance aside, merits justified dismissal | Court found movant failed to comply with Rule 4:46-2(a), which further disadvantaged plaintiffs and supported reversal (court expressed no opinion on merits) |
| Whether dismissal should be affirmed on the merits despite procedural error | Plaintiffs argued procedural deprivation of due process requires reversal regardless of merits | Park urged affirmance, contending claims lacked merit | Court refused to affirm on merit grounds because consideration of untimely summary-type motion at trial violated due process; remanded for trial scheduling |
Key Cases Cited
- Klier v. Sordoni Skanska Construction Co., 337 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 2001) (sua sponte summary dismissal on day of trial violated due process)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
- Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 397 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2007) (denial of late discovery motion upheld where moving party had knowledge and no good excuse)
- Romagnola v. Gillespie, Inc., 194 N.J. 596 (2008) (Rule 1:1-2 is an exception to rules and should be sparingly applied)
- Bellardini v. Krikorian, 222 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 1988) (courts should grant in limine evidentiary rulings sparingly, especially when exclusion would doom a claim)