07-2-9118 Dennis v. Settler, App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the Law Division’s order dismissing his complaint for damages with prejudice. According to the order, the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s orders compelling him to appear and provide sworn testimony at a deposition. Defendant conceded that plaintiff had appeared but argued that the dismissal should be affirmed because plaintiff failed to serve a certificate of permanency in accordance with another provision of the same order. The panel reversed and remanded, finding that the Law Division erroneously entered the order of dismissal and that defendant’s argument for affirmance was without merit because the court made no findings from which it could be determined whether a dismissal was appropriate based upon plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with an order as to the certificate of permanency.
07-2-9129 Itiowe v. Mariner Fin. LLC, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Plaintiff executed a promissory note payable to defendant in return for a loan that was secured by her car. After she stopped making payments, defendant filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part seeking recovery of the amounts due under the loan. Plaintiff failed to answer the complaint, and default was entered. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in the Law Division, entitled “counterclaim,” arguing that instead of obtaining a judgment for the balance then due, defendant should have repossessed her vehicle. She also filed a motion in the Special Civil Part to vacate the default. The judge dismissed the Law Division complaint and directed plaintiff to file her “counterclaim” as an actual counterclaim in the Special Civil Part matter if the default was vacated. The judge also ruled that if the default was not vacated, plaintiff could file a new complaint under a new docket number with the proper filing fee. Plaintiff never filed her counterclaim in the Special Civil Part matter; her motion to vacate the default was denied; and defendant obtained a default judgment. Plaintiff then filed a new complaint in the Law Division. The judge denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment but denied its motion for sanctions; found that plaintiff’ s claims were barred by the entire controversy doctrine and were meritless because it was undisputed that she owned the outstanding amount of the loan; and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Plaintiff appealed the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The panel found that the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s new complaint as barred by the entire controversy doctrine since her claims could have, and should have, been brought as a counterclaim in the Special Civil Part matter, and she failed to file her “counterclaim” in the Special Civil Part matter, as she was told to do. Moreover, her claims were ultimately meritless, as defendant was under no obligation to foreclose and repossess the vehicle, rather than seek a monetary judgment. The panel concluded that plaintiff failed to show that the judge’s denial of her motion for reconsideration was a clear abuse of discretion.
