SUMAR ABNATHYA VS. CEZSARI M. MEDLEYGERALD DEUS VS. CEZSARI M. MEDLEY(L-6072-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2357-16T2

Gerald Deus filed a negligence action (Aug 28, 2015) against Medley and a breach-of-contract claim against his PIP carrier, Progressive; the complaint was administratively dismissed March 11, 2016 under R. 1:13-7(a) for failure to serve defendants.
Deus served Medley and Progressive in June 2016, after the dismissal, and later moved to reinstate the complaint on Sept 14, 2016; neither defendant opposed the motion.
Separately, Abnathya and Moore sued Deus and Medley for the same accident (the Abnathya matter); that case was consolidated with Deus’s matters for discovery and trial by order dated Aug 5, 2016.
The trial court denied reinstatement (Sept 30, 2016), applying the heightened "exceptional circumstances" standard from R. 1:13-7(a) because it treated the situation as a multi-defendant case where at least one defendant was properly served; reconsideration was denied (Nov 4, 2016).
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding the exceptional-circumstances standard did not apply and that Deus demonstrated good cause for reinstatement under the ordinary R. 1:13-7(a) standard (no prejudice shown; motion was uncontested).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Which R. 1:13-7(a) standard governs reinstatement where all named defendants were administratively dismissed and later served	Deus: Exceptional-circumstances standard does not apply because no co-defendant was properly served and participating prior to the reinstatement motion; ordinary good-cause standard applies	Medley/Progressive: Exceptional-circumstances standard should apply to prevent delay in the consolidated proceedings	Court: Exceptional-circumstances standard did not apply; plain text and purpose of R. 1:13-7(a) require that standard only when at least one defendant was properly served and the case proceeded against that defendant before reinstatement was sought
2) If good-cause standard applies, did Deus demonstrate good cause to reinstate his complaint?	Deus: Counsel could not effect service before dismissal; service was later made and the motion was uncontested; no prejudice to defendants	Defendants: (no opposition; no evidentiary showing of prejudice provided)	Court: Deus showed good cause; no contumacious conduct or prejudice shown, so reinstatement should have been granted

Baskett v. Kwokleung Cheung, 422 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2011) (applies "good cause" analysis and grants reinstatement where plaintiffs were essentially blameless and defendants showed no prejudice)
Ghandi v. Cespedes, 390 N.J. Super. 193 (App. Div. 2007) (administrative dismissals are without prejudice; reinstatement routinely granted when plaintiff cures the defect absent fault or prejudice)
Alfano v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 393 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2007) (appellate review not bound by trial court legal conclusions)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (standards for appellate review of legal questions)
O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106 (1975) (defining "good cause" as meritorious claim and absence of contumacious conduct)
Giannakopoulos v. Mid State Mall, 438 N.J. Super. 595 (App. Div. 2014) (explains purpose of the exceptional-circumstances standard in multi-defendant cases)
Weber v. Mayan Palace Hotel & Resorts, 397 N.J. Super. 257 (App. Div. 2007) (addresses the timing and purpose of service relative to reinstatement under R. 1:13-7(a))