New Jersey’s Arbitration Appeal Deadline—A Call for Clarity
The right to reject the award is temporary and subject to a strict 30-day deadline. Rule 4:21A-6(b) provides that a party must file a notice of rejection of the award with the civil division manager within 30 days of the “filing of the arbitrator’s award in the court’s electronic filing system.” If the notice is not filed within 30 days of the filing of the award, the award becomes binding.
January 31, 2025 at 12:15 PM
8 minute read
New Jersey litigators are familiar with New Jersey’s nonbinding, compulsory arbitration program and the 30-day deadline to reject an award and request a trial de novo. The program promotes the speedy and inexpensive resolution of cases through the submission of the controversy to an experienced court-appointed attorney, who listens to the parties then renders an award. The New Jersey Court Rules provide that a party may reject an award and proceed to trial if they are not satisfied with the award. Still, the right to reject the award is temporary and subject to a strict 30-day deadline. Rule 4:21A-6(b) provides that a party must file a notice of rejection of the award with the civil division manager within 30 days of the “filing of the arbitrator’s award in the court’s electronic filing system.” If the notice is not filed within 30 days of the filing of the award, the award becomes binding. The 30-day deadline can be relaxed with a showing of “extraordinary circumstances,” see Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611 (1997), but cases where relief was provided under that standard are rare. In short, compliance with the 30-day deadline is vital if a dissatisfied party wants to vacate the award.
What constitutes the “filing” of the arbitration award for the purpose of triggering the 30-day appeal period? Rule 4:21A-5, which was amended Sept. 1, 2024, provides that “the court shall upload the award into the court’s electronic filing system, at which time it shall be deemed filed and provided to the parties.” See R. 4:21A-5. Before the rule was amended, the event that constituted “filing” was the subject of at least five Appellate Division decisions, which reached different conclusions. The recent amendment modernizes the rule to account for the introduction of eCourts and remote proceedings, perhaps with the objective of resolving the split in the Appellate Division. In practice, though, the amended rule may not provide the requisite clarity, and may lead to additional appeals.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute readDispute Resolution Boards—Getting Real Time Decisions on Construction Projects
7 minute readAppreciating the Important Work the Middlesex County Civil Bar Panel Does
7 minute readNJ Appellate Division Holds 'Clickwrap' Arbitration Provision Enforceable
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Knowledge of Mismatch:' Fed Judge Offers Guidance on How to Hold Banks Accountable for Erroneous Transfers
- 2PAGA Claims Must Now Be 'Headed'
- 3Million-Dollar Verdict: Broward Jury Sides With Small Business
- 4'Reluctant to Trust'?: NY Courts Continue to Grapple With Complexities of Jury Diversity
- 5'Careless Execution' of Presidential Pardons Freed Convicted Sex Trafficker, US Judge Laments
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250