Previously, I reported on an unpublished decision, Sutton v. Babilonia, in which the issue was whether the Second Omnibus COVID 19 Order extended plaintiff’s statute of limitations. The Appellate Division ruled in that case that this order did not extend the statute of limitations but, rather, found that the time period of March 16, 2020 to May 10, 2020 was treated as a legal holiday. Now, in the published Appellate Division decision of Barron v. Gersten, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 88 (App. Div. June 13, 2022), the Appellate Division has ruled that the Supreme Court’s Fourth Omnibus Order, issued on June 11, 2020, did not toll the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff Juan Barron was in an automobile accident on June 21, 2018. His two year statute of limitations to file a lawsuit expired on June 21, 2020. However, he did not file his complaint until June 29, 2020, eight days after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for the plaintiff’s failure to commence the lawsuit on a timely basis. The defendants argued that plaintiff filed the lawsuit after the two year statute of limitations and had not pleaded any exceptions or justifications that would extend or toll the statute of limitations.
In opposition, the plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court had tolled the statute of limitations in its June 11, 2020 Fourth Omnibus Order, which had the effect of adding to the statute of limitations 55 additional days to file a complaint. The defendants, however, contended that this order did not expand or extend the statute of limitations but it had deemed March 16, 2020 through May 10, 2020 a holiday for purposes of calculating court filing deadlines.
The motion judge granted defendants’ motion and entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The judge found that there was no dispute that the cause of action began to accrue on June 21, 2018 and that the plaintiff filed his complaint eight days after the two year statute of limitations expired. Further, the motion judge held that the omnibus orders of the Supreme Court did not add time to statutes of limitations, as argued by the plaintiff, but, instead, deemed the time period of March 16 through May 10 as being the same as a legal holiday for purposes of computing any statute of limitations.
The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Appellate Division. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not assert equitable tolling applied to the late filing of his complaint, nor did he invoke the doctrine of substantial compliance. Instead, he argued that he filed his complaint on a timely basis because the Supreme Court had tolled the statute of limitations in its June 11, 2020 Fourth Omnibus Order.
The plaintiff did not rely on any of the Court’s prior omnibus orders but relied solely on the Fourth Omnibus Order. The plaintiff argued that the Court’s language used in its June 11, 2020 Fourth Omnibus Order ordered something different than it had ordered in its prior omnibus orders and with that order added 55 days to the two year statute of limitations.
The Appellate Division disagreed with this argument. It found that the Supreme Court in its Fourth Omnibus Order gave no indication that it was amending or revising its prior omnibus orders as to the computation of time. Rather, the Court clearly stated that it was affirming the provisions of its prior orders. Therefore, the Appellate Division found that the Court was not ordering anything new or different than it had ordered in its prior omnibus orders.
Hence, the Appellate Division found that the time period ultimately determined to be March 16, 2020 through May 10, 2020 was deemed a legal holiday pursuant to the Court’s constitutional rule making authority. Thus, the Appellate Division affirmed the motion judge’s decision, dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the statute of limitations.
