Christian Gonzales v. Wilfredo Mejia-Mendoza ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1143-22
CHRISTIAN GONZALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILFREDO MEJIA-
MENDOZA and UBER,
Defendants-Respondents.
___________________________
Argued February 12, 2024 – Decided September 3, 2024
Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-0737-20.
Josue Jean Baptiste argued the cause for appellant
(Jean-Baptiste & Associates, attorneys; Josue Jean
Baptiste, on the briefs).
Daniel W. Szep argued the cause for respondent
Wilfredo Mejia-Mendoza (Goetz Schenker Blee &
Wiederhorn, attorneys; Scott Barry Lipowitz and
Daniel W. Szep, of counsel and on the brief).
Lisa M. Only argued the cause for respondents Uber
Technologies, Inc. I/P/A Uber Corporation (Goldberg
Segalla LLP, attorneys; John W. Meyer, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Christian Gonzales appeals from the November 18, 2022 order
denying his motion for reconsideration of the October 7, 2022 order dismissing
his complaint with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(2) for failure to respond
to discovery, comply with an August 26, 2022 order to produce the outstanding
discovery, and attend the scheduled independent medical examination (IME),
and denying his motion to reinstate his complaint. Having reviewed the record
and considered the parties' contentions, we affirm.
I.
In February 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants alleging
personal injuries because of an automobile accident. During discovery, plaintiff
failed to provide responses to Mejia-Mendoza's interrogatories and notice to
produce.1 It was not until defendants' second "good faith" letter did plaintiff
provide initial answers to defendants' Form A interrogatories. Plaintiff's
1
Mejia-Mendoza conducted discovery on behalf of co-defendant, Uber, so we
will refer to Mejia-Mendoza's conduct in discovery as defendants' conduct for
simplicity.
A-1143-22
2
answers listed several health care providers that rendered treatment related to
the October 12, 2019 accident and disclosed a previous motor vehicle accident
from 2013. Although plaintiff's answers referenced attached medical bills and
records, none were provided. Plaintiff likewise did not provide responses to
defendants' supplemental interrogatories and notice to produce and failed to sign
the requested HIPAA releases.
In attempt to cure the deficient responses to Form A interrogatories,
plaintiff resent his responses with the missing attachments: one medical bill,
several pages of handwritten examination notes, and four pages of MRI tests.
Defendants consented to plaintiff's request for an additional two weeks to
provide the remaining outstanding discovery responses. Thereafter, plaintiff
provided several HIPAA releases, including a signed blank release, to
defendants.
Upon review of plaintiff's medical records, defendants requested
additional information regarding the identity of the doctor that recommended
plaintiff undergo cervical and lumbar fusion surgeries, additional surgical
reports, and the operative reports regarding plaintiff's epidural injections.
Defendants also requested specific responses to ten Form A interrogatories.
Plaintiff did not respond.
A-1143-22
3
After plaintiff failed to respond to defendant's repeated requests,
defendants moved to extend discovery and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice. On August 27, 2021, an order was entered granting
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and denying the motion to
extend discovery as moot.
Plaintiff still made no attempt to cure the deficiencies. On November 17,
defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice because
plaintiff's discovery responses remained outstanding. Plaintiff's request for an
extension was granted so as to provide "fully respons[ive] discovery to
defendants."
Plaintiff served the additional and supplemental discovery responses but
did not provide the requested HIPAA releases nor produce the additional
medical records for the providers who had recommended surgery or performed
injections. Plaintiff also sent an email confirmation he was examined by an
orthopedist and surgery was recommended, but did not provide the name of the
doctor, treatment records, or HIPAA authorizations. Nonetheless, defendants
withdrew their motion.
Although plaintiff's complaint had not been reinstated, defendants
scheduled a defense medical examination. Plaintiff failed to attend the
A-1143-22
4
examination or notify defendants of his need to reschedule. When defendants
later rescheduled the examination, plaintiff again failed to appear.
After plaintiff failed to appear for the second examination, defendants
moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice for failing to attend the
examination, or in the alternative, compel the examination. A July 22, 2022
order followed, compelling plaintiff to produce the outstanding discovery,
appear at the examination, and move to reinstate his complaint after the
examination was conducted. The order also stated if plaintiff failed to attend
the examination, his motion to reinstate his complaint would be denied. Plaintiff
prematurely moved to reinstate his complaint, resulting in the court's denial of
his motion on August 26, 2022, which once again compelled plaintiff to attend
the examination.
Nevertheless, plaintiff again failed to appear for the scheduled
examination. Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with
prejudice for his failure to comply with both the July 22 and August 26, 2022
orders. Two days before the hearing date, plaintiff's counsel filed a certification
advising that he provided notice of the pending dismissal motion to his client in
accordance with Appendix II B.
A-1143-22
5
On October 7, 2022, following oral argument, the trial judge granted
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice based on his
failure to provide discovery prior to the motion to reinstate his complaint, failure
to comply with discovery as set forth in the August 26, 2022 order, and the
failure to attend the court-ordered examination. Plaintiff's cross-motion to
reinstate his complaint was denied. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which
was denied in an oral decision on November 18, 2022. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial judge erred in "refusing to evaluate
whether discovery had been fully compliant before deciding to dismiss a case
with prejudice." Plaintiff also argues that a hearing should be required prior to
the trial court issuing an order to dismiss a complaint with prejudice. Lastly,
plaintiff contends that the trial judge has an obligation to give an "innocent"
plaintiff his "day in court." Plaintiff's arguments lack merit.
We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion to reconsider with
deference. Hoover v. Wetzler, 472 N.J. Super. 230, 235 (App. Div. 2022) (citing
Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021)). "Motions for
reconsideration are governed by Rule 4:49-2, which provides that the decision
to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion
A-1143-22
6
of the trial court." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440
N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015).
In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for
discovery misconduct, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Abtrax
Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins-Sin, Inc. 139 N.J. 499, 517 (1995). Under this standard,
a trial court's decision on a discovery matter is "entitled to substantial deference
and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." DiFiore v. Pezic, 254
N.J. 212, 228 (2023) (quoting State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016)).
Plaintiff repeatedly failed to abide by his discovery obligations. He failed
to produce fully responsive answers to interrogatories, to fully produce the
treatment records, to disclose the healthcare providers names, and to appear for
three scheduled defense examinations. The trial judge was permitted to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice under Rule 4:23-5(b)(3). As aptly stated by the
trial judge: "There [was] nothing in the [p]laintiff's opposition . . . brief that
deals with that discovery. It does not say that we provided all of the requested
discovery matters that were the subject of the prior dismissal without prejudice."
We discern no abuse of discretion based on plaintiff's deliberate and
contumacious noncompliance with two court orders. Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound
A-1143-22
7
Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100, 115 (2005). The trial judge properly exercised the
discretion under Rule 4:23-5(b)(3).
We are likewise satisfied the trial judge reviewed and considered the
evidence submitted by plaintiff in support of his reconsideration motion at the
time of the denial. D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990).
Thus, we have no cause to disturb the trial judge's decision.
Affirmed.
A-1143-22
8