The decision of Dae Sun Yoon v. Fletcher & West Associates, LLC., 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 200 (App. Div. Feb. 7, 2025) exemplifies the difficulty in obtaining a dismissal with prejudice due to a plaintiff’s lack of prosecution of a lawsuit. In the Yoon case, plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against defendants, Fletcher & West Associates, LLC. (“Fletcher”) and KFC USA, Inc., (“KFC”), back in December 2019 for a fall on defendant’s premises in October 2018. Due to various procedural deficiencies, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2023, based upon the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the matter. The issue in the Yoon case was whether the trial court applied the appropriate standard in reviewing the motion to reinstate the complaint, as well as whether the defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the matter.
It is clear from the procedural history, which I will not recite here in detail, that there were deficiencies on both sides. The lawyers in the plaintiff’s law firm failed to properly attend to the prosecution of this civil complaint, the lawyers for the defendants failed to timely file an answer, and there was the lack of any real prejudice to the defendants due to the plaintiff’s failure to timely move to reinstate the complaint after it had been dismissed without prejudice.
Under the civil court Rule 1:13-7(a), a plaintiff has four months after the filing of the complaint to ensure that a defendant is served and an answer is filed or the court will send a notice that the matter will be dismissed for lack of prosecution in sixty days unless action is taken such as filing a proof of service, the filing of an answer, or the entry of default. Once a defendant is dismissed for lack of prosecution, the lawsuit can be reinstated as to that defendant upon the submission of a consent order vacating the dismissal and allowing the defendant to file an answer or, in the alternative, the plaintiff can file a motion for a vacation of the dismissal. If a consent order vacating the dismissal is not submitted within sixty days of the order of dismissal, then a motion for reinstatement is required.
In the Yoon case, the defendants were served but failed to file an answer within time. Therefore, the court issued a lack of prosecution dismissal notice. The plaintiff did request a default against defendant Fletcher and a default was entered. The complaint, however, was dismissed as to KFC for lack of prosecution.
Thereafter, both defendants attempted to file an answer, which was rejected, because Fletcher was in default and KFC was dismissed. While a consent order was entered to allow Fletcher to vacate the default and file an answer, the defendant still failed to file an answer. Thus, the court issued an order also dismissing Fletcher for lack of prosecution and the order stated that a formal notice of motion was now required to restore the case to the active trial list.
However, defendants still attempted to defend this matter by filing another consent order vacating the default and attempted to file an answer. But, the court issued a notice, advising the parties that the complaint had been dismissed for lack of prosecution as to both parties and if the plaintiff wished to proceed with the matter, a motion had to be filed with the court to vacate the dismissal.
It was not until a year and a half later, however, that plaintiff’s law firm did move to reinstate. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss with prejudice, opposing the motion to reinstate based upon the “abandonment” of the matter and the failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to reinstate the action. The trial court found that the exceptional circumstances standard applied and, that due to the passage of time and the lack of discovery, there was substantial prejudice to the defendants to now try to defend a case which had been dismissed three years previously. This order was appealed to the Appellate Division, which did reverse the trial court decision.
First, the Appellate Division found that the trial court applied the wrong standard. The Court found that the good cause standard should have been applied, as opposed to the exceptional circumstances standard.
The “good cause standard” is a lower threshold to meet based upon the case law. Applying this standard, if the plaintiff (not the plaintiff’s lawyers) is not to blame, and there is a lack of prejudice to the defendant, the matter should be reinstated. The Appellate Division pointed out that the mere passage of time is an insufficient basis to show prejudice. It also pointed out that here, the defendants were aware of the lawsuit and had been trying to obtain a reinstatement of the lawsuit so that it could be defended.
The Appellate Division noted that both parties were at fault in causing a delay to proceed with this lawsuit. Significantly, the Court found that “[t]he delays in this matter were in no way attributable to plaintiff, who was blameless.”
The Appellate Division found that there was insufficient evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants and that the passage of time alone could not support the Court’s finding in refusing to reinstate the complaint. It found that the defense counsel was engaged and was prepared to defend the case from the outset, but because of procedural “missteps” by both parties, an answer was not filed and no discovery occurred. The defendants were not surprised or prejudiced by being brought into a case at a late juncture. Therefore, the Appellate Division determined that defendants had not demonstrated prejudice.
While the Court noted that there was a desirability for the prompt disposal of cases, it also stated that “eagerness to move cases must defer to our paramount duty to administer justice in the individual case.” Therefore, it found that plaintiff’s law firm’s inattention to the file should not be attributed to the plaintiff given the lack of prejudice to the defendants. Therefore, it reversed the trial court’s decision and found that reinstatement was warranted. It remanded the matter back to the trial court to set a reasonable discovery schedule so that the matter could proceed without any further unnecessary delay.
