Background
In January 2024, self-represented plaintiff Abiodun Olaniwun purchased a 2006 Cadillac DTS for $2,500 from defendant Firas N. Esheesh, who operated as both a car salesman and a mechanic. Prior to the sale, Olaniwun inquired via text message about the vehicle’s condition. Esheesh’s response — “NO ISSUE” — formed the factual centerpiece of what became a Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, claim. The Cadillac failed to start the day after the purchase. Within a week it broke down on the highway and required towing. Olaniwun was presented with a repair bill of $7,759.09 and also alleged that a separate vehicle he had left with Esheesh for repairs — a 2009 Jaguar XFP — was returned with a broken dashboard speaker costing $1,500 to replace. Olaniwun filed suit in the Special Civil Part and ultimately sought $7,759.09 in damages through an amended complaint.
The case was scheduled for hearing on February 10, 2025. At the outset of the session, the judge addressed a packed courtroom of small claims litigants with general instructions, prominently telling everyone to remain in the courtroom at all times unless directed otherwise, and warning that a plaintiff’s absence when their case was called would result in dismissal. Both parties attended the calendar call and were sent to a settlement conference. The conference failed to resolve the matter, and when the case was called for trial shortly afterward, only defendant was present. The court could not locate Olaniwun and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding he had “voluntarily absented himself.” Olaniwun’s subsequent motion to reinstate the complaint was also denied. He appealed.
Olaniwun explained in his appeal that he had not voluntarily left but had stepped out to use the restroom due to a medical need, and that he had informed the Sheriff’s Officer stationed in the courtroom before doing so. The record reflected that the court’s staff had searched for him before the dismissal was entered, but the court made no specific finding that Olaniwun’s explanation was not credible and did not address whether the Sheriff’s Officer had been advised of his whereabouts.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal and remanded for reinstatement of the complaint, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing a consumer fraud action without adequately exploring whether the plaintiff’s absence was truly voluntary. Under New Jersey’s abuse-of-discretion standard, a court’s decision must have a rational explanation and must not rest on an impermissible basis. The court noted that dismissal — even without prejudice — is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly, particularly where it forecloses a litigant’s opportunity to be heard on the merits. Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245 (1982).
The panel found that the record supported a plausible, non-willful explanation for Olaniwun’s absence. He had appeared at the calendar call, participated in the settlement conference, and thus demonstrated an intent to proceed to trial. Given the volume of litigants in the courtroom that day — enough that the judge’s opening remarks addressed a “full courtroom” before an extended small claims calendar — it was not unreasonable that a litigant might need to step away briefly. Critically, the court failed to make any finding on the record that Olaniwun’s claim that he had notified the Sheriff’s Officer was not credible. New Jersey courts have consistently held that where a failure to appear stems from excusable neglect rather than willful disregard for court procedures, reinstatement is appropriate — particularly when the opposing party would suffer no prejudice. The court found no indication that defendant would be prejudiced by the case proceeding to trial.
The Appellate Division applied the strong policy preference that matters be decided on their merits rather than on procedural grounds, citing Nowosleska v. Steel, 400 N.J. 297 (App. Div. 2008). Because the court had not made a credibility finding or specifically inquired into whether the absence was truly voluntary or the product of excusable neglect, it could not be said the discretion was exercised on a rational basis. The case was reversed and remanded for reinstatement without the Appellate Division retaining jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Dismissal, even without prejudice, is a drastic remedy — trial courts in busy Special Civil Part calendars must make specific findings on the record before concluding a self-represented plaintiff has “voluntarily” absented themselves, particularly when a plausible excuse exists and no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.
- New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act provides powerful remedies for misrepresentations in private vehicle sales, including a “NO ISSUE” text message from a mechanic-seller — a pro se plaintiff’s CFA claims must be adjudicated on the merits, not dismissed on procedural grounds absent a finding of willful or contumacious conduct.
- Courts should conduct at least a threshold inquiry into whether a litigant’s failure to appear is excusable neglect (which warrants reinstatement) versus willful disregard (which may not), and should address on the record any evidence — such as notice to court staff — bearing on that distinction.
Why It Matters
For NJ practitioners who handle Special Civil Part and consumer protection matters, this case is a practical reminder that the procedural informality of small claims court cuts both ways. While judges have broad discretion to manage crowded dockets, that discretion does not authorize dismissal of a meritorious CFA claim without meaningful inquiry into whether a plaintiff’s absence was truly voluntary, especially when the record contains an unexamined, facially plausible explanation. Self-represented litigants who communicate with court personnel about temporary absences — even informally, as by telling a Sheriff’s Officer — may be entitled to reinstatement when no credibility finding is made against them.
The case also carries a broader signal about how courts should handle Consumer Fraud Act claims filed by individual consumers in the Special Civil Part. The CFA is one of New Jersey’s most potent consumer protection tools, providing for treble damages and attorney’s fees. Allowing such claims to be extinguished by procedural default, without specific findings of bad faith or willfulness, undermines the statute’s remedial purpose. Practitioners advising consumer-plaintiff clients in these settings should counsel them to remain in the courtroom or explicitly notify court staff — in writing if possible — of any necessary brief absence to protect against exactly this scenario recurring.