Blog Posts

A statute of limitations has a real purpose. It protects defendants from stale claims, faded memories, missing documents, and lawsuits filed after a dispute reasonably appeared to be over.

But it should not be used as a litigation ambush.

Consider a common multi-state litigation problem. A plaintiff timely files suit in New York. The defendants are placed on notice. The plaintiff pursues the case, obtains restraints, moves for default judgment, and obtains a final judgment. While that judgment remains valid, the plaintiff files a new lawsuit in New Jersey to domesticate and enforce the New York judgment.

That step is ordinary. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, New Jersey will generally recognize and enforce a valid judgment entered in another state, provided the rendering court had personal jurisdiction and service of process was proper.

Then the case takes a turn. Several years after the action began, certain defendants successfully move to vacate the default judgment. Not because the claims lacked merit. Not because the plaintiff failed to prove the underlying dispute. The judgment is vacated because the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over those defendants.

The defendants then make the move: they argue in New Jersey that the statute of limitations has expired.

That argument should be viewed with skepticism. It asks the court to treat years of active litigation as though they never happened. It also punishes the plaintiff for doing exactly what a judgment creditor is supposed to do: enforce a valid judgment while it remains in force.

Equitable Tolling: The First Case Matters

New Jersey law recognizes that statutes of limitations should not be applied mechanically where doing so would defeat their purpose. The question is not merely whether time passed. The question is whether the plaintiff acted diligently, whether the defendants had notice, whether the claims became stale, and whether dismissal would serve any legitimate repose interest.

That is the point of Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc., 82 N.J. 188 (1980). In Galligan, the plaintiff timely filed in federal court, but the federal court lacked jurisdiction. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the timely filing could toll the New Jersey statute of limitations because the defendants had notice, the plaintiff was diligent, and dismissal would not advance the statute’s purpose.

The Appellate Division applied the same principle in a situation much closer to the out-of-state judgment problem. In Mitzner v. West Ridgelawn Cemetery, Inc., 311 N.J. Super. 233  (App. Div. 1998), the plaintiffs timely filed in New York. The New York case was later dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction after the New Jersey limitations period had expired. The plaintiffs then filed in New Jersey before the time to appeal the New York dismissal had expired. The Appellate Division held that equitable tolling could apply.

That holding matters. A personal-jurisdiction dismissal does not mean the plaintiff sat on his rights. It does not mean the defendants lacked notice. It does not mean the claims became stale. It means the first court was not the proper court to decide the dispute against those defendants.

That should not create a statute-of-limitations windfall.

The Statutory Safety Valve: N.J.S.A. 2A:14-28

Equitable tolling is only part of the answer. New Jersey also has a statutory savings rule for cases where the plaintiff actually obtained a judgment.

N.J.S.A. 2A:14-28 provides that when judgment is entered for a plaintiff and later reversed, or when judgment is entered for a plaintiff and then, on a motion for relief from judgment, judgment is given against the plaintiff, the plaintiff may commence a new action within one year.

In plain English: if a plaintiff timely sues, obtains a judgment, and that judgment is later undone, New Jersey gives the plaintiff a one-year window to proceed again.

That statute is crucial in the out-of-state judgment context. A plaintiff with a valid New York judgment should not have to file duplicative merits lawsuits in New Jersey while the judgment remains enforceable. The rational step is to domesticate and enforce the judgment. If that judgment is later vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff should not be punished for having relied on it.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Baker, 208 N.J. Super. 131 (Law Div. 1985) recognized this point. Hartford involved a New York default judgment followed by a New Jersey enforcement action. The court rejected ordinary relation back, but separately recognized that N.J.S.A. 2A:14-28 could apply if the New York judgment were later reversed or dismissed on grounds unrelated to the merits. The reasoning was practical: where the plaintiff timely sued in New York and timely sought enforcement in New Jersey, there was no unfair surprise, no stale claim, and no dilatoriness.

Do Not Turn Procedure Into Forfeiture

A defendant may argue that N.J.S.A. 2A:14-28 refers to commencing a “new action,” not amending an existing New Jersey enforcement case. That may raise a procedural issue. It should not become a limitations dismissal.

The better view separates the questions. First, are the claims preserved by equitable tolling and the savings statute? If yes, then the next question is procedural: should the plaintiff proceed by amendment, or must a new complaint be filed?

If a new action is technically required, the court can say so. But the court should not convert that procedural point into a ruling that the claims are time-barred.

Judicial economy also matters. If the same parties, same judgment history, same property, and same limitations issues are already before the court, forcing a new lawsuit may add cost and delay without advancing any legitimate limitations policy.

The Bottom Line

Defendants should not be able to vacate a judgment from another state for lack of personal jurisdiction and then use the time consumed by that litigation to argue that the plaintiff is too late.

That is not repose. That is a windfall.

Limitations statutes protect against stale claims. They do not exist to punish a diligent plaintiff who timely sued, obtained a judgment, pursued enforcement, and then promptly acted after a jurisdictional vacatur.

My office is litigating a case involving this exact issue. Click here  to read our reply brief. A ruling is anticipated shortly.