CIVIL PROCEDURE | JURISDICTION AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
07-2-5332 Linterno v. Luthy, App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Plaintiff Vincenzo Linterno appealed from the order granting defendant Carolyn Luthy’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, or in the alternative, deny plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his complaint. Plaintiff was the owner and operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident with Luthy. He also alleged defendant struck co-defendant Domingo Ortiz’s vehicle. Three months after the accident, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter of representation to Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), Luthy’s insurance company. Almost two years later, less than one month before the statute of limitations period expired, plaintiff filed a multi-party complaint against his insurance company, New Jersey Manufacturers (NJM), for personal injury protection benefits and against co-defendants Luthy and Ortiz for negligence. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a copy of the complaint and a summons to Allstate Subpoena Service for service on co-defendants. Ortiz was served and filed an answer. There is no evidence as to whether defendant NJM was ever served. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Allstate requesting the status of service on Luthy. The record does not include any response to this inquiry, or any follow-up by plaintiff’s counsel. The trial court appropriately denied the appeal finding that exceptional circumstances which would justify reinstating the complaint over a year after it was dismissed were not demonstrated. Counsel’s attempt to lay the blame on the process server does not justify the delay. Rule 1:13-7(a) is intended to prevent delay in multi-party litigation where, as here, the lawsuit has proceeded against one party (Ortiz) but not against a dismissed party (Luthy). Hence, the Rule is fully applicable here, and there are no countervailing equitable reasons to withhold its application.
