Trial court erred in denying motion to reinstate the plaintiff’s personal injury case for lack of “good cause.” “Good cause” is not the correct standard governing reinstatement from dismissal of an action for failure to provide discovery.

The plaintiff brought suit as the result of a slip and fall at Bj’s Wholesale Club. After the defendant failed to receive a response to its discovery demands, it filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, which the court granted. Thereafter, the plaintiff provided all outstanding discovery but did not seek to reinstate her complaint for two years. This delay was apparently premised on illness and surgery sustained by the plaintiff’s attorney. The lower court denied the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate, finding she lacked due diligence in waiting so long to revive the action and did not have “good cause” for the delay. The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed and remanded, concluding that, pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a), reinstatement has no time constraint and good cause is not required. In addition, the plaintiff had been compliant with her discovery obligations. Because the court concluded the defendant would not be prejudiced by the reinstatement, it reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision. This case reminds defense counsel to closely examine the different applicable standards for relief under the New Jersey Court Rules prior to making an application to the court that could be crucial to the client. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2019}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2019 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}