Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haug v. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire

January 24, 2007

BARBARA E. HAUG, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF GEORGE F. HAUG, AND BARBARA E. HAUG, AS EXECUTRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS OF GEORGE F. HAUG, AND BARBARA E. HAUG, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE NORTH AMERICAN TIRE, LLC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; TASC DEVELOPMENT CORP., T/A BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB (IMPROPERLY PLEADED AS BJ'S TIRE SERVICE CENTER); TUFFY ASSOCIATES CORPORATION, INC.; AC AUTOMOTIVE SHOP; LARICK'S TOWING, INC., DEFENDANTS, AND COBRA AUTO WRECKERS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, No. MOR-L-1711-04.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted December 20, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and C.S. Fisher.

Defendant Cobra Auto Wreckers appeals from two orders entered by the trial court; the first denied Cobra's motion to set aside the default previously entered against it, while the second confirmed an arbitration award and entered judgment in plaintiff's favor and against Cobra for $150,000. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we reverse both orders and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff commenced the underlying action by filing a fourteen-count complaint in June 2004, seeking damages in connection with the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident in June 2002. Cobra was only named as a defendant in the twelfth count, denominated as negligent spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff alleged that Cobra improperly destroyed the van that her husband had been driving, and its tires, thus prejudicing her product liability action against other named defendants.

According to the certification of Joseph Rocco, Cobra's principal, he retained an attorney immediately after Cobra was served, and the attorney advised him that he would promptly file an answer on Cobra's behalf. The attorney, however, unbeknownst to Rocco, failed to do so, and default was entered against Cobra in December 2004. When Rocco learned that the attorney had not filed an answer, he retained Cobra's present attorney who contacted the court to learn the status of the matter. He was informed that plaintiff was no longer represented by counsel and that the matter had been ultimately dismissed. The latter statement turned out to be incorrect.

An arbitration hearing was conducted at which plaintiff appeared. Cobra, having had no notice of the hearing, did not participate, and it was found to be fifty percent at fault. Plaintiff's total damages were set at three hundred thousand dollars.

Plaintiff thereafter retained new counsel who filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and served Cobra with the motion. Plaintiff's attorney noted that by the time the arbitration was held, only two defendants had not been dismissed: Cobra and AC Automotive Shop. The arbitrator found no liability on the part of AC Automotive.

Cobra's attorney then filed a motion to set aside the previously-entered default. Cobra supported its motion with a certification from Rocco, in which he recited the history to which we have referred but also noted that Cobra had purchased the vehicle from Larick's Towing and when it did so, it received from Larick's the title to the vehicle which plaintiff had delivered to Larick's.

Neither party requested oral argument, and the trial court decided both motions on the papers, granting plaintiff's and denying Cobra's. It appended the following to the order denying Cobra's motion:

Denied as defendant has failed to show good cause as to why default entered in Dec. 2004 should be vacated now. Plaintiff's claim against defendant Cobra has been pending since June, 2004 and defendant has not answered, appeared or participated in lawsuit up to present. Its neglect is inexcusable and to now allow it to participate after arbitration was conducted would be prejudicial to plaintiff's interests.

A defendant seeking to reopen a default judgment must generally show excusable neglect in failing to answer and the existence of a meritorious defense. Marder v. Realty Construction Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313, 318 (App. Div.), aff'd., 43 N.J. 508 (1964). Applications to reopen default judgments "should be viewed with great liberality, and every reasonable ground for indulgence is tolerated to the end that a just result is reached." Id. at 319. In our judgment, defendant satisfied both prongs.

As to a meritorious defense, Rocco's certification submitted in support of Cobra's motion clearly stated that when he received the subject vehicle, he also received the title, executed by plaintiff. Proof that plaintiff surrendered title to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.