In the time since the most recent post on this blog about published Appellate Division opinions, that court issued published rulings in four cases. Here are summaries:
Stevenson v. The County of Salem, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). As Judge Currier described it in her opinion for the Appellate Division, this was a class action case brought by “former inmates at the Salem County Correctional Facility (the facility), [who] alleged that officials improperly placed them in an ‘at-risk’ unit—designated for individuals considered dangerous to themselves or others—which subjected them to unlawful strip searches.” After much discovery, four classes were certified. The case went to mediation, which produced a settlement under which the claims of classes two and four would be dismissed with prejudice because discovery had shown the claims of those classes were not viable, but members of the other classes would each receive an amount of cash, the four class representatives would receive an incentive award, and class counsel were to receive a fee. Members of the dismissed classes were not notified of the dismissals. After having signed the settlement agreement, one of the class counsel began to represent two class representatives, from classes two and four, who objected to the settlement. The trial court approved the settlement. The objectors appealed, asserting several substantive and procedural arguments. Judge Currier applied the abuse of discretion standard that applies to review of class action settlements and found no basis to overturn the approval of the settlement.
Passero v. Jacobelli, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This was the published portion of a longer opinion by Judge Sabatino. One of the plaintiffs fractured her thoracic spine in a boating accident that she and her husband alleged was caused by defendant’s negligent operation of the boat. A jury found against defendant on liability and awarded substantial damages. On appeal, defendant contested both the liability and damages determinations, asserting that the trial court had erroneously permitted plaintiffs to amend their medical proofs eleven days before trial and denied defendant a discovery extension to combat that new medical evidence, along with other alleged errors. The Appellate Division held that “the trial court misapplied its discretion in denying the defense a fair extension of discovery to respond to plaintiffs' brink-of-trial medical evidence, which materially changed the perceived severity and progression of the back injury.” Because “[t]he damages issues were sufficiently distinct and separable from the liability issues,” the panel remanded for a new trial on damages only.
Martinez v. T. Slack Environmental Services, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This opinion by Judge Bishop-Thompson addressed “two important issues. First, whether a representative action brought pursuant to the Wage and Hour Law (WHL), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a43, and the Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25 to -56.47, is distinct from a class action pursuant to Rule 4:32-1. Second, … the appropriate statute of limitations applicable to companion wage claims.” Relying on Cano v. County Concrete Corp., 483 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 2026), the panel held that the language of both the WHL and PWA was independent of Rule 4:32-1 and therefore did not require class certification, affirming the trial court in that regard. But the Appellate Division reversed on the statute of limitations issue. “The [trial] court mistakenly applied a six-year look-back to the WHL claim, when a two-year statute of limitations period applies. In contrast, the six-year statute of limitations period was properly applied to the PWA claim, which is a breach of contract claim.” Having thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, the panel remanded the case for further proceedings.
New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. J.L., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This was a Family Part case in which, as Judge Augostini summarized it, the issue was “whether a sibling has a right to intervene in a termination of parental rights proceeding involving another sibling to preserve their bond.” The Family Part had denied intervention on the grounds that the proposed intervenor lacked standing and had sought intervention too late. Applying de novo review, the Appellate Division affirmed the standing ruling. “[T]he rights afforded to children in placement vis-à-vis their siblings do not impart a cognizable legal interest or standing to intervene in a sibling’s guardianship proceeding.” For completeness, the panel also addressed the intervention argument and ruled that the proposed intervenor had not satisfied the criteria of Rule 4:33-1, which governs intervention, including its timeliness requirement.
