The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision denying a plaintiff’s ability to reinstate her case against a defendant, as well as the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, due to the exorbitant delay in seeking to prosecute the action for plaintiff’s alleged personal injuries. See Valentin v. Pinckney, No. A-3678-19, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS (App. Div. Dec. 15, 2021). Specifically, the Appellate Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate “good cause” for the lengthy delay for reinstatement for failing to prosecute the action within a reasonable amount of time.
In Valentin, the plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in August of 2012 for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in October of 2011; the defendant was allegedly the driver of the second vehicle which rear-ended plaintiff. Following the filing of the complaint, plaintiff attempted to serve her complaint by process serve, but it was unsuccessful because the process server could not locate the defendant’s specific apartment; plaintiff failed to further investigate the defendant’s location in 2012.
Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, without prejudice, by the lower court for lack of prosecution on March 15, 2013. When the court dismissed the action, an internet search revealed several Newark addresses for the defendant and in April of 2016, plaintiff contacted the Newark Postmaster with the several Newark addresses for the defendant without any success. Plaintiff started to serve all of the potential Newark addresses for the defendant and it was not until March 15, 2020—seven years after the dismissal—that defendant was successfully served at the address defendant listed on the October 2011 police report; plaintiff’s attorney promptly filed a Motion to Reinstate the Case.
The lower court denied plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate the Case without oral argument emphasizing that plaintiff “did not ‘articulate[] a reason for the inordinate delay in moving to restore the matter’ and there was ‘no showing of good cause or exceptional circumstances to explain the gaps in activity to restore this [seven-plus] year[-]old matter.” See Valentin, No. A-3678-19, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS at *3. The lower court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as the plaintiff failed to meet the Reconsideration Standard. This appeal ensued.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of both of plaintiff’s motions, without oral argument, finding the lower court did not abuse its discretion. While New Jersey Courts have liberally indulged motions to reinstate complaints dismissed for lack of prosecution, if a defendant would be prejudiced by the reinstatement, it should be denied by the courts as in the Valentin action. The Appellate Division agreed that the defendant would suffer prejudice by plaintiff’s exorbitant delay in serving and seeking reinstatement of the action as many medical records, witnesses, and other relevant evidence is lost in the more than seven years since the accident and chose to affirm the denial of reinstating the complaint.
From a defense perspective, Valentin teaches us that matters dismissed for lack of prosecution are not always reinstated when a defendant can clearly articulate prejudice from the inordinate delay and when a plaintiff fails to utilize available alternatives for service of the complaint, reinstatement is not proper. Therefore, during a litigation, establishing that a defendant would be prejudiced by reinstating an old complaint when there is a lack of investigative material and evidence available for defendant to adequately defend against a plaintiff’s stale claims for personal injuries.