A New Jersey appeals court has reinstated a legal malpractice suit after finding a Hudson County judge's failure to grant the plaintiffs' request for an extension of the discovery deadline was an abuse of discretion.

The appeals court ruled Thursday that Hudson County Civil Presiding Judge Joseph Turula wrongly denied a motion to extend discovery because he failed to conduct the required analysis of the issue and gave only "fleeting comments" to justify his decision. Another Hudson County judge, Anthony D'Elia, then followed up by improperly dismissing the complaint with prejudice without making findings of fact and conclusions of law, acting based solely on the court's Best Practices deadlines, the appeals court said.

Best Practices is a series of rule amendments adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2000 to address, among other things, delays in trying cases based on litigants' failure to promptly complete discovery.

Appellate Division Judges Richard Hoffman and Lisa Firko suggested that Turula put too much emphasis on sticking to the scheduled trial date in the case.

"We held many years ago that 'no eagerness to expedite business, or to utilize fully the court's time, should be permitted to interfere with our high duty of administering justice in the individual case,'" Hoffman and Firko wrote, citing Pepe v. Urban, a 1951 Appellate Division case. "Nothing has occurred in the many years since to suggest that we should now favor expedience over the interests of justice."

The underlying legal malpractice action was brought against attorney Anthony Carbone and his Jersey City practice by Annie McClenton and her late father's estate. McClenton retained Carbone to bring a medical malpractice suit in connection with her father's death in a nursing home at age 83. Carbone filed suit against the nursing home in September 2013 without conducting an investigation or a review of medical records or consulting any experts.

Carbone believed no affidavit of merit was needed for the medical malpractice claim under the common knowledge doctrine. But the case was dismissed with prejudice in April 2014 based on the lack of an affidavit of merit.

Carbone later stated in a deposition that he was not versed in medical malpractice law, although he purchased a book on the subject, and researched the affidavit of merit statute.

In May 2017, McClenton filed a legal malpractice complaint, which included an affidavit of merit, against Carbone and his firm, and the discovery end date was set for Sept. 15, 2018.

McClenton sought a 60-day extension of the discovery end date, but Carbone and his firm refused. McClenton then moved to compel Carbone's deposition and extend the discovery end date, which was granted in an order extending discovery until Nov. 13, 2018. The order provided that McClenton had to serve expert reports by Sept. 13, 2018, and Carbone and his firm had to serve their expert reports by Oct. 13, 2018. The order set a trial date of Jan. 28, 2019.

Carbone and his firm moved to dismiss the legal malpractice case on summary judgment Oct. 12, 2018, and sought an extension of the discovery end date. Carbone argued that McClenton injected a new issue in the case by filing an expert report that accused the nursing home and a non-party hospice provider of deviating from accepted standards of care. McClenton opposed the motion for summary judgment, consented to Carbone's request to extend discovery, and cross-moved to extend the discovery deadline.

Turula denied extension of the discovery end date Dec. 7, 2018, stating it would be impossible for defendants to prepare for the pending trial date if discovery were extended. Later the same day, Delia granted Carbone's and his firm's summary judgment motion.

On appeal, Hoffman and Firko said Turula's failure to extend the discovery end date and failure to adjourn the trial date were an abuse of discretion. McClenton's medical expert reports, addressing adherence to the standard of care by the nursing home and Jersey City Medical Center, were timely filed, Hoffman and Firko said. There was no evidence that McClenton's late filing of her legal malpractice expert report was intentional, Hoffman and Firko said. Completion of that report was delayed because McClenton had to file a motion to compel Carbone's deposition, the judges said.

The plaintiff's legal malpractice report was served Oct. 19, 2018, five weeks after a court deadline passed, but defense counsel did not claim the late filing was prejudicial, Hoffman and Firko said.

Dismissing the complaint with prejudice was "the ultimate sanction" and was unwarranted, the appeals court said, citing McClenton's "impressive legal and medical expert reports warranting a trial." The appeals court ordered discovery to be reopened for 30 days and a new trial date established.

"We believe that the motion judges properly applied the Best Practices rules in dismissing the complaint for noncompliance with the court's case management order and are disappointed that the decisions were not affirmed, particularly where the plaintiff stated a new theory of liability on the last day expert reports were due," said Carbone's lawyer, Michael Canning of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla.

Sherry Foley of Foley & Foley in Ramsey, representing McClenton and her late father's estate, said the ruling was significant because the pattern of the present case, where one judge hears calendar matters and another hears substantive motions, is becoming more common. Foley, calling that arrangement a "one-two punch," said she hoped the ruling would prevent dismissal of "a good case based on technical violations of the rules. Rules need to be construed to ensure fairness and justice," she said.