Court Enforces Strict Deadline for Filing Demand for Trial De Novo

Plaintiff Arabruny Lindor, as Administrator Ad Prosequendum of the Estate of Roosevelt Rene, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against defendant Janoris Jenkins which was arbitrated on September 21, 2022.  The arbitrator assessed liability at 50% to each party and awarded plaintiff gross damages of $800,000 with a net award of $400,000.  The issue in Lindor v. Jenkins, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 348 (App. Div. Mar. 5, 2024) was whether the defendant timely filed a demand for a trial de novo, rejecting the arbitration award.

Pursuant to the New Jersey court system, this lawsuit was required to be submitted to an arbitration proceeding.  However, under the court rules, if either party is dissatisfied with the award, the party may reject the award and request a trial de novo, as long as the request with the filing fee is made within 30 days of the award.  The problem in the Lindor case was that the arbitrator verbally informed counsel of the decision and completed the arbitrator’s award on the date of the proceeding.  However, the court, through the eCourts system did not notify counsel that the arbitration award was filed until September 22, 2022, the day after the proceeding. 

On October 24, 2022, defendant filed his request for a trial de novo.  The form indicated that the hearing date was September 21, 2022, but the defendant added that the arbitration award was not entered until September 22, 2022.

On October 31, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the trial de novo and confirm the arbitration award, arguing that defendant’s request for a trial was untimely as the last day to file for a trial de novo was October 21, 2022.  In opposing the motion, defendant argued that the time to file ran from the court’s filing date of the arbitration hearing, September 22, and not the date of the hearing, September 21.  Because October 22 was a Saturday, defendant claimed that his filing on Monday, October 24 was timely.

At the trial court level, the judge granted plaintiff’s motion and vacated the entry of the trial de novo and confirmed the arbitration award.  The trial court judge agreed that the defendant had miscalculated the time period by which to file for the trial de novo.  The judge found that the time ran from the date the arbitration award was filed on September 21, 2022, and, hence, the demand for a trial de novo was due no later than Friday, October 21, 2022.  Thus, defendant’s demand for a trial de novo filed on Monday, October 24, 2022, was untimely. 

The defendant appealed this ruling to the Appellate Division.  Unfortunately, for the defendant, the Appellate Division agreed with the plaintiff.  It strictly construed the court rule which stated that a party has 30 days after filing of the arbitration award to file a notice, served upon the civil division manager and all other parties, rejecting the award and demanding a trial de novo.  The Court found that there was no ambiguity in the rule.  This rule has been in place since 1986 and there has been no change in the meaning of the “filing date” of an award. 

In this case, the date was stamped on the award, September 21, and counsel was advised through eCourts that the award was filed on September 21, even though counsel was unable to view it in the eCourt system until September 22.  The Appellate Division found that it would be confusing to accept the defendant’s interpretation that the award was not considered filed until the court system recorded the filing.  The Court found that such an interpretation would lead to different time frames in every case.

Here, the date was clear and conveyed to the parties on the award itself and through the eCourts notification and on the case jacket.  Thus, the Appellate Division agreed that the trial de novo request was untimely.  It found no reason to disturb the trial court’s decision that the defendant’s demand for a trial de novo was untimely and that the arbitration award should be confirmed. 

Tags: arbitration, trial de novo