NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2585-16T4
DONNA CHINN and THOMAS MCGEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
STEPHEN SNYDER, ESQ., SNYDER &
SNYDER, MADELINE HOUSTON, ESQ.,
and HOUSTON & TOTARO,
Defendants-Respondents.
________________________________________
Argued May 15, 2018 – Decided July 11, 2018
Before Judges Carroll and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-6629-
15.
Kenneth S. Thyne argued the cause for
appellant (Roper & Thyne, LLC, attorneys;
Kenneth S. Thyne, on the brief).
Marshall D. Bilder argued the cause for
respondents Stephen Snyder, Esq. and Snyder
and Snyder (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott,
LLC, attorneys; Marshall D. Bilder, of counsel
and on the brief).
Madeline Houston, respondent, argued the cause
pro se and for respondent Houston & Totaro.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Donna Chinn and Thomas McGee appeal orders
dismissing their purported class action legal malpractice claims
with and without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) and (2)
for failure to produce discovery, denying reconsideration of those
orders, and denying their motion to reinstate their amended
complaint. We affirm.
I.
Plaintiffs' arguments must be considered in light of the
complex procedural history in the trial court.
On September 21, 2015, Chinn and McGee filed a putative class
action complaint in the Law Division alleging legal malpractice
and related claims against attorneys who represented them in a
multi-county consolidated matter alleging employment
discrimination against Prudential Life Insurance Company
(Prudential). Plaintiffs claimed that they, and certain other
Prudential employees and agents, settled their employment
discrimination claims on a compromised basis because of, among
other things, the alleged negligence of their attorneys,
defendants Stephen Snyder, Esq., and his firm, Snyder & Snyder
(collectively Snyder), and Madeline Houston, Esq., and her firm,
Houston & Totaro (collectively Houston).
2 A-2585-16T4
On November 2, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
refining their claims, but naming no new parties. Both the
complaint and the amended complaint were filed by Edward R. Grossi,
Esq., as counsel for plaintiffs.
On December 10, 2015, Houston served discovery requests on
plaintiffs by way of service on Grossi. On February 5, 2016,
Snyder served discovery requests on plaintiffs by way of service
on Grossi.
On February 11, 2016, Houston notified Grossi in writing that
plaintiffs' responses to Houston's discovery requests were
overdue, and, if responses were not received promptly, a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint would be forthcoming.
On March 21, 2016, Roper & Thyne, LLC (Roper) filed a notice
of appearance as co-counsel for plaintiffs.
On April 5, 2016, Houston moved to disqualify Roper as
plaintiffs' counsel based on conflicts of interest arising from
its involvement in the Prudential matter.
On April 7, 2016, Snyder advised Grossi and Roper that
plaintiffs' responses to Snyder's discovery requests were overdue,
and, if responses were not received in seven days, Snyder would
move for relief.
On April 12, 2016, Snyder moved to disqualify Grossi and
Roper as plaintiffs' counsel based on conflicts of interest arising
3 A-2585-16T4
from their involvement in the Prudential matter, and in a separate
fee dispute arising from the Prudential matter.
On April 14, 2016, Grossi informed Snyder's counsel to expect
plaintiffs' discovery responses in a week. Plaintiffs, however,
failed to respond to Snyder's discovery requests.
On May 13, 2016, the trial court granted defendants' motions
to disqualify Grossi and Roper as plaintiffs' counsel.
On July 8, 2016, the trial court denied Roper's motion for
reconsideration of the disqualification order.
On July 13, 2016, plaintiffs retained Scott Piekarsky, Esq.,
to represent them. However, Piekarsky did not file a substitution
of counsel until October 6, 2016, almost three months later.
Piekarsky's representation of plaintiffs was unknown to
defendants' counsel until October 6, 2016.
On July 27, 2016, Houston's counsel, unaware of Piekarsky's
representation of plaintiffs, sent letters to plaintiffs at the
addresses in the amended complaint via first-class, regular mail
and certified mail, return receipt requested. The letters advised
plaintiffs that their responses to Houston's discovery requests
were overdue, and that if responses were not received by August
19, 2016, Houston would move to dismiss the amended complaint.
Houston's counsel received a signed return receipt card
establishing Chinn's receipt of the July 27, 2016 letter. The
4 A-2585-16T4
letter sent to Chinn by regular mail on July 27, 2016, was not
returned. The letter sent to McGee on July 27, 2016, by certified
mail was returned unclaimed. The letter sent to McGee on July 27,
2016, by regular mail was not returned.
On July 29, 2016, Snyder's counsel, similarly unaware of
Piekarsky's representation of plaintiffs, sent letters to
plaintiffs at the addresses in the amended complaint via first-
class, regular mail, and certified mail, return receipt requested.
The letters advised plaintiffs that their responses to Snyder's
discovery requests were overdue, and that if responses were not
received by August 15, 2016, Snyder would move to dismiss the
amended complaint. Copies of the discovery requests were enclosed.
Snyder's counsel received a signed return receipt card
establishing Chinn's receipt of the July 29, 2016 letter. The
letter sent to Chinn by regular mail on July 29, 2016, was not
returned. The letter sent to McGee on July 29, 2016, by certified
mail was returned unclaimed. The letter sent to McGee on July 29,
2016, by regular mail was not returned.
On August 29, 2016, Houston moved to dismiss the amended
complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) for
plaintiffs' failure to respond to Houston's discovery requests.
Because Piekarsky had not yet filed a substitution of counsel,
Houston's counsel served the motion on plaintiffs at the addresses
5 A-2585-16T4
in the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail, and
certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail sent
to both plaintiffs was returned unclaimed. The regular mail sent
to both plaintiffs was not returned.
On September 6, 2016, Snyder moved to dismiss the amended
complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) for
plaintiffs' failure to respond to Snyder's discovery requests.
Because Piekarsky had not yet filed a substitution of counsel,
Snyder's counsel served the motion on plaintiffs at the addresses
in the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail, and
certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail sent
to both plaintiffs was returned unclaimed. The regular mail sent
to both plaintiffs was not returned. It is undisputed that when
they filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
prejudice defendants were not delinquent with respect to the
discovery requests served on them.
On September 16, 2016, the trial court granted Houston's
unopposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) for failure to respond to
Houston's discovery requests.
On September 22, 2016, Houston's counsel served a copy of the
trial court's September 16, 2016 order, along with the notice to
pro se parties required by Rule 4:23-5(a)(1), on plaintiffs at the
6 A-2585-16T4
addresses in the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail,
and certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail
sent to McGee was returned unclaimed. The certified mail sent to
Chinn was returned marked "Attempted – Not Known." The regular
mail sent to both plaintiffs was not returned.
On September 30, 2016, the trial court granted Snyder's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) for failure to respond to Snyder's discovery
requests. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' purported class
action claims with prejudice because no counsel of record had
appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
On October 6, 2016, Snyder's counsel served a copy of the
trial court's September 30, 2016 order, along with the notice to
pro se parties required by Rule 4:23-5(a)(1), on plaintiffs at the
addresses in the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail
and certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail
sent to both plaintiffs was returned unclaimed. The regular mail
sent to both plaintiffs was not returned.
Also on October 6, 2016, Piekarsky filed a substitution of
counsel notifying defendants that he represented plaintiffs. Upon
receipt of a copy of the substitution, Snyder's counsel emailed a
copy of the trial court's September 30, 2016 order to Piekarsky.
7 A-2585-16T4
On October 10, 2016, Snyder's counsel emailed Piekarsky a
copy of the motion papers that resulted in entry of the September
30, 2016 order.
On October 11, 2016, Houston moved to disqualify Piekarsky
as plaintiffs' counsel. The trial court granted the motion on
November 4, 2016.
On November 16, 2016, Houston moved to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). Houston's
counsel served the motion papers, along with the notice to pro se
parties required by the Rule, on plaintiffs at the addresses in
the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail, and certified
mail, return receipt requested.
On November 29, 2016, Snyder moved to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). Snyder's
counsel served the motion papers, along with the notice to pro se
parties required by the Rule, on plaintiffs at the addresses in
the amended complaint by first-class, regular mail, and certified
mail, return receipt requested.
The certified mail sent to McGee was returned unclaimed, and
to Chinn was returned undelivered. The regular mail sent to both
plaintiffs was not returned.
On December 9, 2016, the court sent a notice to each plaintiff
notifying them that they were required to appear on December 16,
8 A-2585-16T4
2016, the return date of the motions. The notices were sent by
first-class, regular mail to the same addresses to which defendants
had sent all prior mail to plaintiffs. McGee admits receiving the
court's notice.
On December 15, 2016, after business hours, Michael J.
Epstein, Esq., sent defendants' counsel an email stating that he
had been retained by plaintiffs. Epstein stated that he intended
to appear on plaintiffs' behalf the next day to seek an adjournment
of defendants' motions to permit him to complete plaintiffs'
discovery responses and move to reinstate the amended complaint.1
1
Plaintiffs included in their appendix a letter dated November
28, 2016, from Piekarsky to Epstein enclosing Piekarsky's files
on this matter and stating that "[m]ost time sensitive at this
point is to get discovery to the defense and seek to restore the
claim (sic) action status. The related orders are attached." This
letter contradicts plaintiffs' argument that Epstein was "unaware
that the case had been dismissed without prejudice" when he
received the files, and that the "[o]rder dismissing the Complaint
(sic) was not served upon prior counsel and was not received by
either substitute counsel." Moreover, the letter contradicts the
January 31, 2017 certification Epstein submitted to the trial
court in which he certified that Piekarsky "did not inform me that
the case had been dismissed," and that he "only learned about the
Motion shortly before the return date." The November 28, 2016
letter is not part of the trial court record and plaintiffs did
not move to supplement the record prior to including the letter
in their appendix. R. 2:5-5. Given the relevance of the letter,
we sua sponte grant leave to supplement the record with the letter.
Because plaintiffs did not move to supplement the record, we will
not consider the other documents that are not part of the trial
court record, but were included in the plaintiffs' appendix.
Hisenaj v. Keuhner, 194 N.J. 6, 25 (2008).
9 A-2585-16T4
On December 16, 2016, Epstein appeared on the return date of
the motions. Although the court had directed plaintiffs to appear
in person, they did not do so. Epstein requested an adjournment
of the motions. He stated that he possessed responses to Houston's
discovery requests, but was still compiling responses to Snyder's
requests. Epstein did not produce any discovery responses.
Notably, Epstein did not argue that plaintiffs had not received
notice of defendants' motions, or that they were unware that the
amended complaint had been dismissed without prejudice. This is
significant because plaintiffs made those claims a few weeks later
in a motion for reconsideration.
On December 16, 2016, the trial court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The
court concluded that all of the prerequisites for dismissal with
prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(a)(2) had been met, that Epstein was
"not denying" that those prerequisites had been met, that
plaintiffs had not moved to reinstate the amended complaint, or
produced fully responsive discovery, and that no exceptional
circumstances warranted adjournment of defendants' motions.
Importantly, the court found that plaintiffs received notice of
the dismissal of the amended complaint without prejudice, and of
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. Finally, the court
concluded that there was "no adequate sanction to alleviate the
10 A-2585-16T4
prejudice suffered by the long period of time and the failure of
the plaintiffs to comply with discovery obligations."
On January 10, 2017, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of
the trial court's December 16, 2016 orders dismissing the amended
complaint with prejudice, and for reinstatement of the amended
complaint. In support of the motions, plaintiffs submitted
certifications denying that they had received any of the mail sent
to them by defendants' counsel. In his certification, McGee
admitted receiving notices from the postal service that "certain
documents" had been sent to him by certified mail. He certified
that when he went to retrieve the certified mail, it had been
returned because he "had not picked up the mail quickly enough."
McGee certified that the first notice he had of the dismissal of
his amended complaint was the court's December 9, 2016 letter.
In Chinn's certification, she denied receiving any
correspondence from defendants' counsel or the court. She
certified that she moved to 6115 Tidewater Drive in Norfolk,
Virginia, the address to which defendants' counsel sent all
correspondence, in July 2016. Yet, the complaint, filed in
September 2015, states that Chinn resides at 6115 Tidewater Drive,
Norfolk, Virginia. Chinn certified that she "continued to receive
mail forwarded from [her] prior attorneys," but "never received
any mail forwarded from the Defendants indicating my case was
11 A-2585-16T4
going to be dismissed." It is not clear why Chinn refers to
forwarded mail when all mail sent to her by defendants' counsel
was to the Tidewater Drive address, thus obviating the need for
forwarding by the postal service. The motions were accompanied
by what plaintiffs characterized as fully responsive answers to
defendants' discovery requests.
On February 3, 2017, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motions for reconsideration and to reinstate the amended
complaint. The trial court placed its findings of fact and
conclusions of law for both motions on the record. Plaintiffs did
not file a transcript of the court's February 3, 2017 oral
decision. As a result, it is not possible to ascertain from the
record the reason for the trial judge's decisions.2
This appeal followed. Plaintiffs appeal the September 16,
and September 30, 2016 orders dismissing the amended complaint
without prejudice, the December 16, 2016 orders dismissing the
amended complaint with prejudice, and the February 3, 2017 order
denying their motion for reconsideration of the December 16, 2016
orders. They also challenge the February 3, 2017 order denying
their motion to reinstate the amended complaint.
2
The order denying the motion for reconsideration appears to
have been erroneously dated January 3, 2017. We assume the order
was dated February 3, 2017, the date of the court's decision.
12 A-2585-16T4
II.
We review the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' amended
complaint for failure to provide discovery for abuse of discretion.
A&M Farm & Garden Ctr. v. Am. Sprinkler Mech., LLC, 423 N.J. Super.
528, 534 (App. Div. 2012). Generally, we "defer to a trial judge's
discovery rulings absent an abuse of discretion or a judge's
misunderstanding or misapplication of the law." Capital Health
Sys., Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Servs., Inc., 230 N.J. 73, 79-80
(2017).
Rule 4:23-5(a) provides a two-step procedure for parties to
request the dismissal of an opposing party's pleading for failure
to provide discovery. First, "the party entitled to discovery may
. . . move, on notice, for an order dismissing or suppressing the
pleading of the delinquent party." R. 4:23-5(a)(1). The judge
may then order the delinquent party's pleading be dismissed without
prejudice. Ibid.
Second, if the delinquent party fails to cure the outstanding
discovery deficiencies within sixty days of the order, the moving
party may request the court to dismiss the delinquent party's
pleading with prejudice. R. 4:23-5(a)(2). The motion
shall be granted unless a motion to vacate the
previously entered order of dismissal or
suppression without prejudice has been filed
by the delinquent party and either the
demanded and fully responsive discovery has
13 A-2585-16T4
been provided or exceptional circumstances are
demonstrated.
[Ibid.]
Exceptional circumstances may be shown when an external
factor, such as bad health or an emergency, prevented a party's
discovery obligations from being met. Rodriguez v. Luciano, 277
N.J. Super. 109, 112 (App. Div. 1994) (citing Suarez v. Sumitomo
Chem. Co., 256 N.J. Super. 683, 688-89 (Law Div. 1991)). Parties
must pay "meticulous attention to" the "critical prescriptions"
of the Rule. Zimmerman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 260 N.J.
Super. 368, 376-77 (App. Div. 1992).
Having carefully reviewed the record in light of the
procedural requirements of Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) and (2), and the
applicable legal standards, we conclude that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion when entering the orders under appeal.
Those orders are addressed in turn.
A. September 16, 2016 and September 30, 2016 Orders Dismissing
the Amended Complaint without Prejudice.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) were unopposed. The record
reveals that defendants' motion papers included proof of service
of their motions on plaintiffs, and that their discovery requests,
which had been served on Grossi prior to his disqualification,
more than eight months prior to the filing of defendants' motions,
14 A-2585-16T4
had gone unanswered. There is ample support for the trial court's
conclusion that the requirements of the Rule had been met.
We are not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument that defendants
improperly took advantage of plaintiffs by moving to dismiss the
amended complaint without prejudice after the disqualification of
Grossi and Roper. Grossi was aware of the delinquent discovery
prior to his disqualification, having emailed Snyder's counsel on
April 14, 2016, promising that plaintiffs' discovery responses
would be forthcoming in a week. He had an adequate opportunity
to respond to the discovery requests prior to his disqualification.
In addition, when defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint without prejudice plaintiffs were represented by
counsel. Piekarsky was retained by plaintiffs on July 13, 2016,
more than a month before the first motion. For unexplained
reasons, he did not file a notice of appearance until October 6,
2016, after the amended complaint had been dismissed without
prejudice. Upon receipt of a copy of the substitution of counsel
on October 6, 2016, Snyder's counsel emailed a copy of the
September 30, 2016 order to Piekarsky. A few days later, he
emailed him a copy of the motion papers that resulted in entry of
the September 30, 2016 order. There is nothing in the record
15 A-2585-16T4
supporting the proposition that defendants' counsel attempted to
exclude Piekarsky from being notified of the motions to dismiss.3
B. December 16, 2016 Orders Dismissing the Amended Complaint
with Prejudice.
We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
The trial court record established that defendants satisfied all
of the requirements of Rule 4:23-5(a)(2). Orders dismissing the
amended complaint without prejudice had been entered more than
sixty days prior to the filing of the motions. Defendants produced
proof of service of the motions, as well as proof of service of
the notices to pro se parties required by the Rule. As noted
above, where the prerequisites have been met
[t]he motion to dismiss or suppress with
prejudice shall be granted unless a motion to
vacate the previously entered order of
dismissal or suppression without prejudice has
been filed by the delinquent party and either
the demanded and fully responsive discovery
has been provided or exceptional circumstances
are demonstrated.
[R. 4:23-5(a)(2).]
3
In their motion for reconsideration of the September 16, 2016,
and September 30, 2016 orders plaintiffs claim, for the first
time, that they did not receive notice of defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. We address the
February 3, 2017 order denying their motion for reconsideration
below.
16 A-2585-16T4
On the return date of the motions, plaintiffs had not moved
to vacate the previously entered orders dismissing the amended
complaint. Instead, their attorney, Epstein, who had been retained
by plaintiffs almost three weeks earlier (before Snyder's motion
to dismiss with prejudice had even been filed), but who had not
filed a notice of appearance, appeared on the return date of the
motions seeking an adjournment. The plain text of the Rule
requires dismissal with prejudice in the absence of a motion by
the delinquent party to vacate the prior dismissal orders.
Although plaintiffs' counsel argued that his clients had
demonstrated extraordinary circumstances for not providing their
discovery responses, such a showing would be relevant only if
plaintiffs had moved to vacate the prior orders.
Notably, Epstein did not produce plaintiffs' discovery
responses on the return date of the motion, but argued that he
could complete them in as little as one week if necessary. He did
not explain why, after having been informed by Piekarsky in writing
nearly three weeks before the return date of the motions that the
amended complaint had been dismissed, he did not complete
plaintiffs' discovery responses prior to appearing in court. We
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in these
circumstances.
17 A-2585-16T4
C. February 7, 2017 Order Denying Reconsideration, and February
7, 2017 Order Denying Motion to Reinstate Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs raised a number of arguments in a motion for
reconsideration of the orders of the trial court resulting in the
dismissal of the amended complaint with and without prejudice.
Those arguments included that plaintiffs were unaware of the
defendants' motions because they received none of the regular mail
sent to them by either defendant's counsel on numerous occasions
at the addresses for plaintiffs in the amended complaint, that
they were either unaware of certified mail sent to them, or failed
to retrieve such mail despite notices from the postal service, and
that they were unduly disadvantaged by the fact that their counsel
had been disqualified, even though they were represented by
attorneys for several months during which discovery responses
could have been provided, including a three-month period during
which their attorney did not file a substitution of counsel,
leaving the court and defendants with the impression that
plaintiffs were appearing pro se.
The trial court placed its findings of fact and conclusions
of law with respect to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
the record on February 3, 2017. Plaintiffs did not file a copy
of the transcript of the February 3, 2017 proceedings, contrary
to Rule 2:5-3(b). We are, therefore, unable to review the reasons
18 A-2585-16T4
given by the trial court for denying plaintiffs' motion, and
decline to entertain plaintiffs' arguments. Cipala v. Lincoln
Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 49, 55 (2004).4 The same is true for
plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the amended complaint, which was
also decided in an oral opinion delivered on February 3, 2017.
In light of our decision affirming the dismissal of the
amended complaint with prejudice, we need not reach plaintiffs'
challenge to the orders concerning disqualification of counsel.
Affirmed.
4
Plaintiffs' transcript request form, filed with their notice of
appeal, did not request a transcript of the February 3, 2017
proceedings. Houston's brief pointed out the absence from the
record of the February 3, 2017 transcript. As far as we can
discern from the record, plaintiffs took no steps to cure this
deficiency. We also note that plaintiffs cite several unpublished
opinions without an indication by counsel of compliance with Rule
1:36-3. We do not rely on those opinions.
19 A-2585-16T4
DONNA CHINN VS. STEPHEN SNYDER, ESQ. (L-6629-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion