Trilby Tener, M.D. v. Surgaidei, LLC, A-1223-23

Dr. Trilby Tener sued her former employer, Dr. Khashayar Vosough, along with others, alleging breach of contract and fraud regarding compensation under an employment contract.
The complaint was filed in August 2019. Tener attempted service on Vosough by delivering documents to his mother at his parents' residence in New Jersey, though Vosough had not lived there since 1997 and had provided Tener a different address years earlier.
Vosough was not personally served and was unaware of the lawsuit until his parents received a later motion years after the complaint's dismissal.
The case was administratively dismissed for lack of prosecution after Tener did not pursue default judgment; three years later, Tener moved to reinstate the complaint.
The trial court initially reinstated the complaint but, upon Vosough's motion for reconsideration, vacated the reinstatement due to improper service.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether service on Vosough at his parents' home was proper	Service was sufficient to proceed with default and reinstatement	Service was defective; Vosough never lived at that address and was not personally served	Service was improper; reinstatement not permitted
Whether reinstatement of the administratively dismissed complaint was warranted	Even after delay, reinstatement should be granted; errors were counsel's fault	Reinstatement inappropriate since the underlying service defect was not cured	Reinstatement not allowed without curing service defect
Applicability of 'good cause' or 'exceptional circumstances' standard for reinstatement	Rule standard should favor reinstatement	Neither standard met as essential defect (service) remained uncured	Regardless of standard, reinstatement not allowed without proper service
Whether attorney error justifies reinstatement	Counsel's inaction should not count against Tener	Plaintiff must bear consequences of counsel's failure to serve properly	Attorney error insufficient to relax rules without foundational prerequisites

Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (abuse of discretion standard for review of trial court decisions)
Ghandi v. Cespedes, 390 N.J. Super. 193 (reinstatement of a complaint after administrative dismissal requires curing the defect)
Mason v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 233 N.J. Super. 263 (purpose of administrative dismissals for lack of prosecution)
Rivera v. Alt. Coast Rehab. Ctr., 321 N.J. Super. 340 (reinstatement is typically permitted if defect is cured, even after a delay)
Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, 149 N.J. 605 (attorney carelessness alone does not warrant relaxation of procedural requirements)