SOFYA REZNIK VS. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (L-4023-12, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5459-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Reznik) sued Honda (manufacturer) after a 2010 airbag deployment injury; originally sued pro se in 2012 naming Honda and ten fictitious parties. DCH (dealer) was added by amended complaint in Nov. 2013.
- Case management orders set discovery deadlines and required leave before filing motions; discovery proceeded irregularly and depositions were not completed.
- Plaintiff's first attorney filed a substitution of counsel (Nov. 2014) that plaintiff says she did not consent to; plaintiff protested to the court and to defense counsel.
- Defense counsel sent informal letters (not formal motions) seeking orders: (1) compel plaintiff to appear for deposition, (2) dismiss for failure to appear, and (3) preclude expert testimony; the court entered those orders without formal motions, affidavits, or adequate opportunity for plaintiff to respond.
- Plaintiff retained replacement counsel twice (one was later suspended); court denied motions to reinstate the complaint, extend discovery, allow expert testimony, and adjourn trial; on the day of trial the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to Honda.
- Appellate court reversed dismissals and several interlocutory orders as to Honda (procedural/motion-practice errors) but affirmed dismissal as to DCH on statute-of-limitations / fictitious-party grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the discovery orders (compel deposition, dismissal for nonappearance, preclusion of expert testimony) properly entered based on defense counsel's letters rather than formal motions/affidavits? | Reznik: orders were entered without proper notice, affidavits, or opportunity to be heard; counsel withdrew without consent and she was abandoned. | Defendants: relief was warranted by plaintiff's failures to appear and comply with discovery. | Court: Reversed those orders as improperly entered (violated motion practice, ex parte relief, no Rule 1:6-6 affidavits or required conferral). |
| Was withdrawal/substitution of plaintiff's first counsel valid and did the court properly decline to reinstate where plaintiff contested the withdrawal? | Reznik: first counsel withdrew without her consent; court failed to resolve dispute and should have considered her certifications; new counsel later sought reinstatement. | Defendants: plaintiff failed to show grounds to void substitution; procedural rules require strict compliance. | Court: Reversed trial-court handling — it should have reviewed withdrawal when plaintiff contested it and not penalized plaintiff for counsel's misconduct. |
| Was denial of discovery extension / refusal to adjourn trial appropriate given counsel problems and plaintiff's need for experts? | Reznik: exceptional circumstances existed (abandonment by first counsel, second counsel suspended, medical issues); extension and expert relief should have been granted. | Defendants: plaintiff had long discovery period and failed to comply with deadlines; no exceptional circumstances. | Court: Reversed denial as abuse of discretion under the particular facts (attorney abandonment and suspension justified relief). |
| Did the amended complaint naming DCH relate back to the original pro se complaint under fictitious-party practice (R. 4:26-4), or was DCH time-barred? | Reznik: DCH was added by amendment and relation-back should apply. | DCH: plaintiff failed to use due diligence identifying the dealer and did not satisfy R. 4:26-4 requirements. | Court: Affirmed dismissal as to DCH — plaintiff failed to show she did not know defendant's identity or exercised due diligence; fictitious-party rule unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (broad trial-court discretion to deny adjournments)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2011) (deferential review of trial-court discovery management; reversal where orders rest on erroneous legal premises)
- Abtrax Pharms. v. Elkins-Sinn, 139 N.J. 499 (N.J. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice for discovery misconduct reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (N.J. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- Greczyn v. Colgate-Palmolive, 183 N.J. 5 (N.J. 2005) (purpose and contours of fictitious-party practice)
- Matynska v. Fried, 175 N.J. 51 (N.J. 2002) (due-diligence threshold for fictitious-party amendments)
- Mears v. Sandoz Pharms., Inc., 300 N.J. Super. 622 (App. Div. 1997) (fictitious-party practice requires diligence; relation-back not available if identity could have been discovered)
- Claypotch v. Heller, 360 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 2003) (prejudice to defendant is a factor but diligence is the threshold inquiry)
- Kosmowski v. Atl. City Med. Ctr., 175 N.J. 568 (N.J. 2003) (balancing principle that litigant should not suffer for advocate's sins when considering adjournment/relief)
- Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, 197 N.J. 81 (N.J. 2008) (standards for spoliation claims; expert proof relevance)