.

The Quarterly Dose

LEGAL ROUNDUP – New Jersey

The Quarterly Dose – March 2025

March 1, 2025

New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Good Cause Standard Applies, Even with Trial Scheduled, When Discovery End Date Has Not Passed
Donnelly v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, A-3878-22 (App. Div. 2024)

The New Jersey Appellate Division held that the “good cause” standard of R. 4:24-1(c) applies, even when there is a trial date scheduled, so long as the discovery has not concluded and a motion to extend discovery is returnable before the discovery end date. 

The court held the scheduling of a trial date during preliminary stages of discovery, meaning before discovery has concluded, did not obviate the application of the good cause standard based on the plain language of the rules. Based on this interpretation, it was appropriate that the trial court granted a motion to extend discovery for good cause shown, pushing back the trial date in the process. 

 

New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Counsel’s Failure to Pursue Discovery in a Timely Manner Will Not Warrant Reopening Discovery
Kara v. Lincoln Specialty Care Ctr., A-1257-22 (App. Div. 2024)

The New Jersey Appellate Division found no exceptional circumstances to warrant reopening and extending discovery when the failure to timely complete discovery was attributable to a party’s counsel. 

When the discovery end date had passed and the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide expert reports, the court granted the motion over the plaintiff’s cross-motion to extend discovery, based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish exceptional circumstances. Despite both parties’ counsel contributing to the delay in completing discovery, the court noted it is a plaintiff’s burden to litigate their claims and pursue discovery through motion practice, if necessary. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – March 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.