SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS. TODD A. HENDERSON (F-035067-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4590-19
    SPECIALIZED LOAN
    SERVICING, LLC,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    TODD A. HENDERSON,
    KATHERINE HENDERSON,
    husband and wife, ACCURATE
    DENTAL GROUP, BANK OF
    AMERICA, N.A., JP MORGAN
    CHASE BANK, N.A., TD BANK,
    N.A., ST. CLARES HOSPITAL,
    and STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Defendants,
    and
    GEMINI SOLUTIONS, LLC,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________
    Submitted April 12, 2021 – Decided August 24, 2021
    Before Judges Sabatino and Gooden Brown.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No.
    F-035067-13.
    Norgaard, O'Boyle & Hannon, attorneys for appellant
    (Cassandra Norgaard, on the briefs).
    Epstein Ostrove, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Elliot
    D. Ostrove, of counsel; Vahbiz P. Karanjia, on the
    brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant Gemini Solutions LLC (Gemini) appeals from several orders
    culminating in an August 3, 2020 final judgment, asserting the trial court erred
    by granting plaintiff's Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC's (SLS) motion to
    dismiss its answer with prejudice for failure to comply with discovery
    obligations and denying its application to reinstate its answer in contravention
    of Rule 4:23-5. We agree and reverse.
    I.
    Rule 4:23-5 provides procedural safeguards for the dismissal of pleadings
    for failure to comply with discovery obligations. The well-settled purpose of
    the rule is to elicit outstanding discovery "rather than to punish the offender by
    the loss of his cause of action . . . ." Zimmerman v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,
    
    260 N.J. Super. 368
    , 374 (App. Div. 1992). To that end, to succeed on a motion
    to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5 for failure to provide discovery, the
    A-4590-19
    2
    aggrieved party must strictly comply with the requirements of the rule, 
    id. at 373
    , which "involves a two-step process." Sullivan v. Coverings & Installation,
    Inc., 
    403 N.J. Super. 86
    , 93 (App. Div. 2008).
    "First, the aggrieved party may move for dismissal for non-compliance
    with discovery obligations" under paragraph (a)(1) of the rule, and if the motion
    is granted, the pleadings of the delinquent party will be suppressed or "dismissed
    without prejudice." 
    Ibid.
     The rule mandates dismissal or suppression without
    prejudice "[u]nless good cause for other relief is shown . . . ." R. 4:23-5(a)(1).
    "The motion shall be supported by an affidavit reciting the facts of the
    delinquent party's default and stating that the moving party is not in default in
    any discovery obligations owed to the delinquent party." R. 4:23-5(a)(1). Rule
    4:23-5(a)(1) dismissals expressly apply to non-compliance with discovery
    obligations pursuant to Rule 4:17, pertaining to interrogatories, Rule 4:18,
    pertaining to demands for documents, and Rule 4:19, pertaining to demands for
    medical examinations.
    "Upon being served with the order of dismissal or suppression without
    prejudice, counsel for the delinquent party shall forthwith" notify the client,
    "explaining the consequences of failure to comply with the discovery obligation
    and to file and serve a timely motion to restore." R. 4:23-5(a)(1). Thereafter,
    A-4590-19
    3
    [t]he delinquent party may move on notice for vacation
    of the dismissal or suppression order at any time before
    the entry of an order of dismissal or suppression with
    prejudice. The motion shall be supported by affidavit
    reciting that the discovery asserted to have been
    withheld has been fully and responsively provided and
    shall be accompanied by payment of a $100 restoration
    fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court, made payable to
    the "Treasurer, State of New Jersey," if the motion to
    vacate is made within [thirty] days after entry of the
    order of dismissal or suppression, or a $300 restoration
    fee if the motion is made thereafter. If, however, the
    motion is not made within [ninety] days after entry of
    the order of dismissal or suppression, the court may
    also order the delinquent party to pay sanctions or
    attorney's fees and costs, or both, as a condition of
    restoration.
    [R. 4:23-5(a)(1).]
    Next,
    [i]f an order of dismissal or suppression without
    prejudice has been entered pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)
    of this rule and not thereafter vacated, the party entitled
    to the discovery may, after the expiration of [sixty] days
    from the date of the order, move on notice for an order
    of dismissal or suppression with prejudice. The
    attorney for the delinquent party shall, not later than
    [seven] days prior to the return date of the motion, file
    and serve an affidavit reciting that the client was
    previously served as required by subparagraph (a)(1)
    and has been served with an additional notification . . .
    of the pendency of the motion to dismiss or suppress
    with prejudice. . . . Appearance on the return date of
    the motion shall be mandatory for the attorney for the
    delinquent party . . . . The moving party need not
    appear but may be required to do so by the court. The
    A-4590-19
    4
    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).]
    Further,
    [i]f the attorney for the delinquent party fails to timely
    serve the client with the original order of dismissal or
    suppression without prejudice, fails to file and serve the
    affidavit and the notifications required by this rule, or
    fails to appear on the return date of the motion to
    dismiss or suppress with prejudice, the court shall,
    unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated,
    proceed by order to show cause or take such other
    appropriate action as may be necessary to obtain
    compliance with the requirements of this rule. If the
    court is required to take action to ensure compliance or
    the motion for dismissal or suppression with prejudice
    is denied because of extraordinary circumstances, the
    court may order sanctions or attorney's fees and costs,
    or both.
    [R. 4:23-5(a)(3).]
    With these general principles in mind, we recite an abbreviated summary
    of this matter's factual background and procedural history. Although the record
    is extensive, we need not detail it at length in order to address the salient issues.
    A-4590-19
    5
    The underlying dispute involved the foreclosure of a non-purchase money
    mortgage for $295,000 held by PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC), later substituted as
    plaintiff SLS,1 which was secured by real property owned by Todd and
    Katherine Henderson, a married couple. On October 2, 2013, PNC filed a two-
    count complaint against the Hendersons 2 to foreclose on the mortgage, which
    had been in default since March 1, 2009. On June 18, 2015, PNC filed an
    amended complaint identifying for the first time four "[i]ntervening
    [m]ortgages" the Hendersons had executed and secured with the property,
    including a $250,000 mortgage executed by the Hendersons on September 19,
    2003, to National City Bank, and recorded on October 21, 2003. The mortgage
    was subsequently assigned to Gemini on May 11, 2013, which assignment was
    recorded on July 16, 2013.
    1
    There is an extensive history leading to the substitution of SLS as plaintiff.
    On May 18, 2017, the mortgage in question was assigned from PNC, successor
    in interest to National City Mortgage Inc., to Nationstar Mortgage LLC
    (Nationstar), and recorded on September 11, 2017. Thereafter, on January 30,
    2018, the mortgage was assigned from Nationstar to SLS, and recorded on
    January 31, 2018. By court order entered on June 29, 2018, "the [c]omplaint
    and all subsequent pleadings" were "amended to replace [PNC] with [SLS]."
    2
    The complaint also named as defendants Bank of America, NA; J.P. Morgan
    Chase Bank, NA; TD Bank, NA; Accurate Dental Group; St. Clares Hospital;
    and the State of New Jersey.
    A-4590-19
    6
    In the amended complaint, PNC named Gemini for the first time as a
    defendant and added a third count seeking priority over Gemini's mortgage
    through equitable subrogation. The complaint alleged that because the mortgage
    held by PNC's "assignor or predecessor," executed by the Hendersons on April
    25, 2003, but recorded on October 27, 2004, was "utilized to satisfy the [f]irst
    [m]ortgage" recorded on April 30, 2002, PNC was "equitably subrogated to the
    lien position of the [f]irst [m]ortgage" and "[t]he [i]ntervening [m]ortgages have
    been unjustly enriched to the extent that they have acquired a first lien
    position."3
    On October 16, 2015, Gemini filed a contesting answer to the amended
    complaint, challenging the priority of PNC's mortgage. When Gemini failed to
    respond to PNC's initial interrogatories and requests for production of
    documents due May 17, 2016, PNC advised Gemini by letters dated May 18 and
    May 26, 2016, that its continued non-compliance would result in an appropriate
    motion.4 On July 15, 2016, when PNC eventually moved to strike Gemini's
    3
    The other three intervening mortgages are not involved in this appeal.
    4
    At the time, PNC was not in default in any of its discovery obligations because
    Gemini had not served any discovery requests.
    A-4590-19
    7
    answer for failure to respond to discovery requests, Gemini e-mailed uncertified
    responses to PNC's requests, prompting PNC to withdraw its motion. 5
    In addition to the motion to strike, in two separate motions, PNC moved
    for summary judgment on all three counts in the amended complaint. As to
    count three, PNC specifically sought a determination that its lien had priority
    over the Gemini mortgage. While not expressly opposing PNC's motion in
    relation to count three, Gemini cross-moved for summary judgment on count
    three, seeking adjudication of the priority dispute.      Thus, three separate
    summary judgment motions were submitted to the trial court, two filed by PNC
    and one filed by Gemini.
    On February 28, 2017, the court entered separate orders essentially
    granting summary judgement to PNC on count three but denying summary
    judgment to PNC on counts one and two. Regarding count three, the court
    concluded that PNC's mortgage "ha[d] priority over [Gemini's] . . . ." In a
    statement of reasons accompanying the February 28 orders, although the court
    5
    Gemini's belated response, which was received on July 27, 2016, four days
    before the July 31, 2016 discovery end date, included two expert reports. As a
    result, PNC obtained an adjournment of the September 14, 2016 trial date to
    allow sufficient time to review the discovery and schedule any necessary
    depositions.
    A-4590-19
    8
    rejected PNC's "argument under the equitable subrogation doctrine," the court
    determined that because PNC's mortgage "effectively replaced the [f]irst
    [m]ortgage," PNC's mortgage "retain[ed] the same priority as the [f]irst
    [m]ortgage." 6 Regarding counts one and two, the court concluded that plaintiff
    "fail[ed] to demonstrate ownership or control of the underlying debt" because
    plaintiff failed to "produce[] a copy of the [n]ote with any of its motions."
    On March 7, 2017, PNC moved for reconsideration of the February 28
    order denying summary judgment on counts one and two. Following oral
    argument, the court reversed its prior decisions.        In an August 23, 2017
    memorializing order, the court vacated the February 28, 2017 orders, granted
    summary judgment to PNC on counts one and two, and granted summary
    judgment to Gemini on count three.7 Notably, as to count three, the court
    reiterated its rejection of the equitable subrogation doctrine but determined that
    PNC failed to raise in the pleading the modification and replacement principles
    6
    The court noted that Gemini filed no opposition to PNC's motion for summary
    judgment on count three and, while its answer provided affirmative defenses to
    the third count, the answer failed to include specific facts to support the defenses
    as required under Rule 4:5-3 and 4:5-4. The court did not expressly address
    Gemini's cross-motion for summary judgment on count three.
    7
    The August 23, 2017 order indicated that the court's reasons were "set forth
    on the record . . . in the telephonic presence of counsel." However, no transcript
    of the hearing was provided in the record.
    A-4590-19
    9
    relied upon by the court in its prior decision. Thus, Gemini was not fairly
    apprised of PNC's legal theory.
    On September 12, 2017, PNC again moved for reconsideration, which was
    denied on January 16, 2018. In the statement of reasons accompanying the
    order, the court noted that PNC failed to "utilize[] the proper mechanics to
    amend its pleadings to fairly apprise Gemini" of its legal theory. Thereafter,
    PNC moved to amend its complaint to resolve the outstanding priority dispute
    between its mortgage and Gemini's, which motion was granted in an order
    entered on June 29, 2018. As a result, on July 11, 2018, SLS, now substituted
    for PNC, filed its second amended complaint specifically asserting the legal
    theory of "[r]eplacement and [m]odification" and "[c]ircular [p]riority" against
    Gemini, and seeking priority over Gemini's mortgage. Represented by new
    counsel, Gemini filed a contesting answer to plaintiff's second amended
    complaint on August 27, 2018.
    On September 6, 2018, plaintiff served Gemini with a second set of
    interrogatories and requests for production of documents. When Gemini failed
    to respond, plaintiff sent a non-compliance letter and demand for responses on
    November 1 and 7, 2018. Both letters complied with Rule 1:6-2(c), requiring
    notification to the non-compliant party "that continued non-compliance with a
    A-4590-19
    10
    discovery obligation will result in an appropriate motion being made without
    further attempt to resolve the matter." When Gemini still failed to respond, on
    November 14, 2018, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to strike Gemini's
    answer for failure to comply with discovery obligations pursuant to Rule 4:23-
    5.
    On December 5, 2018, the court granted plaintiff's motion, ordering
    Gemini's answer "stricken in its entirety, without prejudice," pursuant to Rule
    4:23-5(a)(1), and awarding plaintiff counsel fees incurred in filing the motion
    upon submission of "a [c]ertification of [s]ervices." On December 10, 2018,
    plaintiff filed a certification of services seeking a total of $1135.95 for attorneys'
    fees and costs incurred in filing the motion.
    On January 9, 2019, Gemini filed a substitution of attorney and moved to
    vacate the dismissal and reinstate its answer. The moving papers also objected
    to paying plaintiff's counsel fees. In a supporting certification, Cathy Gray, a
    member of Gemini, averred that Gemini's "previous counsel never informed
    [Gemini] that [a motion to strike its answer] had been filed." It was only after
    Gemini retained new counsel "on December 6, 2018," that Gemini became aware
    "that an [o]rder had been entered on December 5, 2018 striking [Gemini's]
    answer."
    A-4590-19
    11
    Gray certified further that "[i]t was never conveyed to [Gemini] or to its
    members that there was a looming deadline for the discovery, or that the answer
    would be stricken if discovery was not produced." However, immediately after
    retaining new counsel, Gemini "was informed about the [o]rder [s]triking the
    [a]nswer, . . . informed to begin gathering the documents and other information
    to comply with the discovery request," and submitted all the requested discovery
    to plaintiff. Gemini's new counsel confirmed in a supporting certification that
    on January 9, 2019, "all requested outstanding discovery" was "delivered" to
    plaintiff.
    Without addressing Gemini's pending motion to vacate the dismissal and
    reinstate its answer, on January 15, 2019, the court awarded plaintiff counsel
    fees and costs in the amount of $675.95 in connection with its motion to strike.
    Shortly thereafter, on January 17, 2019, plaintiff filed opposition to Gemini's
    motion. While admitting that Gemini had provided the requested discovery ,
    plaintiff opposed Gemini's motion citing Gemini's failure to submit any proof
    that it paid the $300 reinstatement fee required under Rule 4:23-5, as well as
    Gemini's longstanding history of "discovery failures."
    On February 4, 2019, Gemini responded to plaintiff's opposition with a
    certification by its counsel averring that a check for $300 was sent "to the Clerk
    A-4590-19
    12
    of the Superior Court, payable to the 'Treasurer, State of New Jersey' pursuant
    to [Rule] 4:23-5 for the reinstatement fee." However, "[b]ecause the motion was
    filed on [eCourts], it was not sent with the motion, but separately." No exhibits
    were attached to the attorney certification.
    On February 8, 2019, the court issued an order denying Gemini's motion
    to reinstate its answer. In the accompanying statement of reasons, the court cited
    the absence of competent proof that Gemini provided the requested discovery as
    well as Gemini's failure to pay the restoration fee. The court explained:
    [A]lthough [Gemini has] provided the certification of
    Cathy Cray in support of [its] motion, [it] did not
    submit any additional proofs that the withheld
    discovery has been fully and responsively provided
    . . . . [P]ursuant to [Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) Gemini was]
    required to pay a restoration fee to the Clerk of the
    Superior Court since the [m]otion to [v]acate was filed
    [thirty-four] days after the entry of the order of
    dismissal. [Gemini has] failed to pay the restoration fee
    and ha[s] not provided any proof as to compliance with
    discover[y].
    On February 27, 2019, Gemini moved for reconsideration, asserting: (1)
    the reinstatement fee of $300 was paid to the Clerk of the Superior Court; (2)
    discovery was fully transmitted to SLS on January 8, 2019, as admitted by SLS
    in its opposition brief; and (3) the attorneys' fees in the amount of $675.95 were
    A-4590-19
    13
    paid to SLS on February 27, 2019. 8 Although not included in the record,
    attached to the moving papers was an exhibit proving delivery of the
    reinstatement fee. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Gemini's motion for
    reconsideration seeks "another proverbial bite at the apple."
    On June 6, 2019, the court denied Gemini's motion for reconsideration .
    In the accompanying statement of reasons, the court stated:
    [Gemini] has not provided proof of payment of the
    [$300] restoration fee. There is no proof in Morris
    County Finance Department, the Office of Foreclosure
    nor the Banking and Cash Management Unit.
    Furthermore, [Gemini's] collateral account with the
    Office of Foreclosure does not reflect a [$300]
    deduction. There is also no record of a separate check
    having been received.
    On June 17, 2019, Gemini filed another motion to reinstate, reiterating
    that on January 9, 2019, all requested discovery was delivered to plaintiff, and
    highlighting the difficulties it had faced in attempting to pay the restoration fee,
    dating back to its first attempt on January 22, 2019. Specifically addressing the
    difficulty paying the restoration fee, in a supporting certification, Gemini's
    counsel averred:
    8
    On February 20, 2019, plaintiff's counsel had advised the court that it had not
    yet received the payment of attorneys' fees from Gemini, which was due on
    February 14, 2019.
    A-4590-19
    14
    [1]. Because [Rule] 4:23-5 predates [eCourts], the Rule
    contemplated payment of the fee with the motion, by
    attaching a check to the motion. This is impossible with
    [eCourts] unless a check is either mailed directly to the
    [c]ourt or paid through a collateral account.
    [2]. Before [Gemini's] motion to vacate the dismissal
    order was filed on January 22, 2019, I contacted the
    Clerk to determine how the payment was to be made. I
    was advised that my firm's collateral account would be
    charged upon filing. It was not.
    [3]. In an attempt to comply with the Rule, my office
    sent a check directly to the Clerk of the Superior Court,
    payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey. It now
    appears that this check was returned to our office and
    never applied to the motion.
    [4]. My office has been in communication with the
    Clerk's office, and because the motion was not titled
    "Motion to Reinstate Case," the charge was not made to
    the collateral account for the fee when the original
    motion was filed. The cure suggested was to refile the
    motion with the title as it appears earlier in this
    paragraph; the Clerk also advised that the fee would be
    charged manually. . . .
    [5]. Because the fee will not be charged to the collateral
    account until th[e] motion is actually filed, I cannot
    certify to the payment until after filing; however, once
    the payment is made I will file a supplemental
    certification to ensure compliance with the Rule.
    On July 18, 2019, Gemini's counsel submitted a supplemental certification
    stating:
    A-4590-19
    15
    [1]. Following the filing of the motion to reinstate . . . ,
    our office followed up with the Superior Court Clerk
    regarding the reinstatement fee, to advise that the fee
    had not been charged, and to request same be charged.
    [2]. The Superior Court Clerk advised that the
    restoration charges "are not imposed until and unless
    the order is entered reinstating the case."
    [3]. Our office already attempted to mail a check,
    which was returned, and we were advised that firms
    with a collateral account had to use the collateral
    account, rather than sending checks.
    [4]. I personally emailed the Superior Court Clerk
    numerous times to advise of the issue and to seek
    guidance as to how to pay the restoration fee. I was
    ultimately transferred to a supervisor, who I spoke with
    over the phone.
    [5]. The supervisor informed me that she             would
    manually charge the collateral accounts               as a
    "miscellaneous" charge for the restoration fee.     I have
    attached the collateral account statement .         . . as
    evidence that the fee has, in fact, been paid        in the
    amount required by the Rule . . . .[9]
    That same day, July 18, 2019, plaintiff cross-moved to strike Gemini's
    answer with prejudice, asserting that Gemini "ha[d] not filed a [s]upplemental
    [c]ertification certifying that it ha[d] paid the [$300 r]einstatement [f]ee ."
    9
    We confirmed with the Superior Court Clerk that restoration fees are not
    charged until the order is entered reinstating the case and that the $300
    restoration fee was debited from Gemini's counsel's collateral account on June
    17, 2019.
    A-4590-19
    16
    Gemini opposed the cross-motion, certifying that it was only after sending "no
    less than ten emails to the Clerk's office attempting to . . . get the fee paid" that
    a "manager ultimately . . . manually charge[d] the restoration fee as . . .
    documented . . . in [counsel's] supplemental certification."
    On January 13, 2020, the court denied Gemini's motion to reinstate with
    prejudice, and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike Gemini's answer with
    prejudice. In the accompanying statement of reasons, while acknowledging
    Gemini's arguments regarding its "good faith effort to pay the restoration fee,"
    the court stated "it is evident [that] Gemini did not comply with the provisions
    of [Rule] 4:23-5(a)(1)."     The court further noted that even if Gemini had
    complied with the provisions of Rule 4:23-5(a)(1), its motion to reinstate would
    still be "untimely and improper" because Gemini's answer was already stricken
    by the court in its December 5, 2018 order, and Gemini's motion to reinstate and
    for reconsideration were denied on February 8 and June 6, 2019, respectively .
    Thereafter, on March 27, 2020, plaintiff moved for final judgment over
    Gemini's objection. On August 3, 2020, the motion was granted, and final
    judgment was entered. This appeal followed.
    On appeal, Gemini raises the following points for our consideration:
    A-4590-19
    17
    POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING
    TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ON FEBRUARY 8,
    2019 PURSUANT TO [RULE] 4:23-5.
    POINT II: THE COURT'S FAILURE TO
    RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO VACATE
    DEFAULT AND REINSTATE GEMINI'S ANSWER
    CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
    POINT III: THE COURT'S ENTRY OF THE ORDER
    DISMISSING      GEMINI'S  ANSWER     WITH
    PREJUDICE AFTER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF
    COMPLIANCE OF [RULE] 4:23-5 WAS PROVIDED
    CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
    POINT    IV:    THE   TRIAL  COURT'S
    CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED "DELAY" ON
    THE   PART   OF   GEMINI  IN SEEKING
    REINSTATEMENT WAS IMPROPER AND AN
    ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
    POINT V: GEMINI WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE
    PROCESS THROUGH THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS
    DENIAL OF REINSTATEMENT.
    II.
    "[T]he standard of review for dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for
    discovery misconduct is whether the trial court abused its discretion , a standard
    that cautions appellate courts not to interfere unless an injustice appears to have
    been done." Abtrax Pharm. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 
    139 N.J. 499
    , 517 (1995). Here,
    we are constrained to reverse because, under the circumstances, it was a
    mistaken exercise of discretion to deny Gemini's motion to reinstate with
    A-4590-19
    18
    prejudice and to grant plaintiff's cross-motion to strike Gemini's answer with
    prejudice.
    We acknowledge that we have "adhere[d] to the principle that a [party] is
    not 'automatically entitled' to relief merely because there has been some failure
    to comply with all the procedural requirements of the rule." A&M Farm &
    Garden Ctr. v. Am. Sprinkler Mech. L.L.C., 
    423 N.J. Super. 528
    , 536 (App. Div.
    2012). Nonetheless, "[i]n [Zimmerman], we noted that 'achievement of the
    salutary scheme of [Rule 4:23-5] requires meticulous attention to its critical
    prescriptions, and particularly to those provisions which are intended to afford
    a measure of protection to the party who is faced with the ultimate litigation
    disaster of termination of his cause.'" A&M Farm & Garden Ctr., 
    423 N.J. Super. at 535
     (quoting Zimmerman, 
    260 N.J. Super. at 376-77
    ). Indeed, Rule
    4:23-5 "specif[ies] that a dismissal with prejudice shall occur if certain
    conditions are satisfied. . . ." Cooper v. Consol. Rail Corp., 
    391 N.J. Super. 17
    ,
    25 (App. Div. 2007). Here, because the Rule's requirements were not satisfied,
    we are convinced that the court's decision resulted in an injustice to Gemini.
    First, under the Rule, the "delinquent party" may move to vacate the
    dismissal or suppression without prejudice order "at any time before the entry
    of an order of dismissal or suppression with prejudice." R. 4:23-5(a)(1). Thus,
    A-4590-19
    19
    we have "interpret[ed] Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) as imposing no time constraints for
    seeking reinstatement[.]" Sullivan, 
    403 N.J. Super. at 96
    . Therefore, contrary
    to the court's finding in its statement of reasons accompanying the January 13,
    2020 order, Gemini's motion to reinstate was not "untimely" because it was filed
    before plaintiff cross-moved to strike Gemini's answer with prejudice and before
    an order was entered striking Gemini's answer with prejudice.
    Second, under the Rule, the 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). Here, when
    plaintiff cross-moved to suppress Gemini's answer with prejudice, it is
    undisputed that Gemini's motion to vacate the previously entered suppression
    order was pending and the requested discovery had been previously provided on
    January 8, 2019. Therefore, the prerequisites for granting plaintiff's motion
    were not met.
    Notwithstanding Gemini's counsel's certification, in denying Gemini's
    motion to reinstate its answer, the court relied in part on the non-payment of the
    restoration fee with the filing of the motion. However, as asserted by Gemini's
    A-4590-19
    20
    counsel, because Rule 4:23-5 predates eCourts, the payment of the requisite
    restoration fee contemplated by the Rule is not synchronized.
    By December 14, 2017, the Judiciary implemented a mandatory electronic
    eCourts filing system (eCourts) in the Superior Court, Law Division, in all
    vicinages. See Notice to the Bar, eCourts Civil — Mandatory Electronic Filing,
    Judge Glenn A. Grant, June 6, 2017 (
    223 N.J.L.J. 1809
     (2017)). A May 17,
    2017 notice to the Bar advised attorneys that they "must have a Judiciary
    Account Charge System (JACS) account to electronically file documents that
    require a fee." See Notice to the Bar, Expansion of eCourts to Civil, Judge
    Glenn A. Grant, May 17, 2017 (
    223 N.J.L.J. 1558
     (2017)). As a result, if an
    electronic filing was fee-related, an attorney could only make payment through
    his or her JACS account. Even assuming attorneys could still pay by check
    made payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey, that method of payment was
    eliminated on December 14, 2017, when eCourts was fully implemented in all
    vicinages. See Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 7.4 on R.
    4:21A-6 (2021).
    Thus, we are satisfied that Gemini's difficulty paying the restoration fee
    simultaneously with the filing of its motion was a result of a mismatch between
    the Rule's requirements and the newly implemented electronic eCourts filing
    A-4590-19
    21
    system, rather than a lack of diligence on the part of Gemini in satisfying that
    particular requirement of the Rule. While we understand the court's frustration,
    "it must be remembered that the main purpose of Rule 4:23-5 is to compel
    discovery, not to dismiss pleadings." Clark v. Pomponio, 
    397 N.J. Super. 630
    ,
    645 (App. Div. 2008). "[I]t is a tenet of our jurisdiction that resolution of
    disputes on the merits are to be encouraged rather than resolution by default for
    failure to comply with procedural requirements." St. James AME Dev. Corp. v.
    City of Jersey City, 
    403 N.J. Super. 480
    , 484 (App. Div. 2008). "Rule 4:23-5
    advances this goal, while affording an aggrieved party a remedy to compel
    production of the outstanding discovery and the right to seek final resolution
    through a dismissal process." 
    Ibid.
    Gemini's answer was stricken without prejudice on December 5, 2018, for
    failure to respond to discovery requests.      Gemini provided the requested
    discovery on January 8, 2019. The court denied Gemini's motion to reinstate on
    February 8, 2019, its motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2019, and its second
    motion to reinstate on January 13, 2020, when it granted plaintiff's motion to
    strike with prejudice. Inasmuch as the requested discovery had been produced
    over a year prior to the adjudication of the January 13 motion, and there was
    unequivocal evidence of payment of the restoration fee by June 17, 2019, a
    A-4590-19
    22
    dismissal with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5 was not justified under these
    circumstances. See Cooper, 
    391 N.J. Super. at 22-23
     (affirming a dismissal with
    prejudice where the plaintiff did not provide the requested discovery between
    the order of dismissal without prejudice and the time of hearing the motion to
    dismiss   with   prejudice   and   there    was   no   finding   of   "exceptional
    circumstances"); St. James, 
    403 N.J. Super. at 485
     (noting "that a plaintiff's
    motion to reinstate when counsel had provided fully responsive discovery just
    four days prior to the hearing date on the motion to dismiss with prejudice should
    be granted").
    The court's denial of Gemini's motion to reinstate when it had satisfied the
    requirements of the Rule, and grant of plaintiff's motion to dismiss with
    prejudice when the prerequisites for dismissal had not been met constituted a
    clear error of judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the January 13, 2020 order
    denying Gemini's motion to reinstate and granting plaintiff's cross-motion to
    strike Gemini's answer with prejudice, and we vacate the August 3, 2020 final
    judgment. Based on our decision, we need not address Gemini's remaining
    arguments.
    Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
    A-4590-19
    23