Unpublished Opinions for the Week of May 15, 2017

15-2-3247 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Dang, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Defendants appealed the final judgment in a residential foreclosure action. Defendants borrowed money to purchase a residence and executed a mortgage. Defendants defaulted on the loan in June 2011, and plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint in July 2012. Plaintiff and defendants entered mediation in January 2013, but that terminated several months later. The court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution in January 2014. Plaintiff moved to reinstate the case to active status in December 2014, and moved for final judgment in April 2015. The trial court ordered the property sold to pay the debt. Defendants argued that plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Fair Foreclosure Act. They asserted that because the foreclosure complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution, plaintiff should have filed another 30-day notice of its intention to foreclosure when it submitted its motion to reinstate the complaint. The court found no case law or statutory authority to support defendants’ position.

07-2-3234 Jalil v. Pilgrim Med. Ctr., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Respondents filed a complaint against appellants alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Following appellant’s responsive pleadings, the parties proceeded to pretrial discovery whereby respondents propounded interrogatories and a notice to produce documents. Appellants failed to respond despite notice by plaintiff’s counsel of the deficiency; respondents moved to suppress appellants’ answers without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a)(1) as well as a motion to compel production of the outstanding documents. The trial court granted both motions, which were unopposed, and ordered the compelling of documents by a date certain. Again, appellants failed to comply with the trial court’s order and respondents moved to suppress; appellants did not oppose the motion and the court suppressed appellants’ answer with prejudice. Following appellants’ failure to appear at a proof hearing, the trial court entered final judgment by default. Thereafter, respondents recorded a lien of their default judgment. Appellants than moved to vacate the default judgment and quash post-judgment subpoenas with a reopening of discovery; the court denied appellants’ motions finding it failed to show a meritorious defense or excusable neglect. On appeal, the court affirmed holding appellants’ arguments as to the suppression of their answer were untimely and without sufficient merit. Further, the court affirmed denial of appellants’ request to vacate the default judgment finding they had not established excusable neglect attributable to an honest mistake that was compatible with due diligence or reasonable prudence.