A recent decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division has upheld the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit involving claims of negligence and assault arising from an incident at a movie theater. The ruling underscores the importance of timely prosecution in civil cases and clarifies how courts may respond to ongoing procedural delays.
The complaint was filed by Shirley A. Goodheart in Morris County on August 22, 2019, naming American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) and Frederick Wieder as defendants. According to court documents, Goodheart alleged that during an incident at an AMC theater on August 25, 2017, she informed management that Wieder’s son was having a seizure. She claimed this information upset Wieder, who then assaulted her and caused bodily injury.
In addition to her tort claim against Wieder, Goodheart asserted that AMC and its personnel were negligent for failing to act reasonably during the medical emergency, maintain adequate security, provide a safe environment, and implement situational awareness technologies similar to those used at other AMC locations. She sought damages covering medical costs, future care needs, loss of income and earnings potential, pain and suffering, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
The litigation faced numerous delays over several years. Discovery deadlines were extended multiple times before expiring on November 30, 2021. Trial dates were set and adjourned twice at Goodheart’s request before being scheduled for January 30, 2023. Two weeks prior to trial, Goodheart requested another adjournment which was denied; when she appeared unprepared for trial on the scheduled date, the court dismissed her complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
After two unsuccessful motions for reconsideration regarding this dismissal, Goodheart obtained permission in January 2024 to substitute counsel for herself. During subsequent case management conferences in early 2024, it emerged that her intended medical expert had passed away; further time was granted so she could retain a new expert witness.
By mid-2024 Goodheart reported difficulties securing expert testimony: one retained expert declined involvement after initially agreeing to participate. The court granted additional extensions for producing an expert report but imposed strict deadlines—most notably requiring service of the report by November 15, 2024—and conditioned continued prosecution of the case on compliance with these requirements as well as payment of $300 in sanctions to AMC.
On November 18, 2024—three days after the deadline—AMC submitted a proposed order seeking dismissal with prejudice under Rule 4:42-1(c), citing non-receipt of the required expert report within the specified timeframe. Goodheart’s counsel responded that same day stating they had just received the report and served it upon defendants immediately thereafter.
Despite this response from plaintiff’s counsel about serving the report minutes after receiving it post-deadline—and noting their efforts to obtain it “as quickly as possible”—the court entered an unopposed order on December 16, 2024 dismissing all claims against AMC with prejudice due to failure to comply with its earlier orders.
Subsequently on January 8, 2025 defendant Wieder moved for dismissal under similar grounds: not only had Goodheart failed to serve her expert report by deadline but also failed to move formally for reinstatement of her complaint or pay sanctions as previously ordered by the court. The court entered another unopposed order on January 17 dismissing all remaining claims against both defendants with prejudice.
Goodheart moved for reconsideration arguing leniency should be shown due to circumstances including death of her expert witness and personal disability issues; however AMC argued such relief was moot given full dismissal already entered against all parties based on repeated noncompliance with explicit court directives.
In denying reconsideration on January 31—the third contested order—the court cited “constant undue delay” throughout litigation resulting in “palpable” prejudice against defendants: “Although [plaintiff] now seeks reconsideration…she failed to submit any objection…Plaintiff has not established that interests of justice would be served by reconsideration…Indeed under these circumstances interests of justice would be subverted if [the] motion [were] granted.” The appellate panel agreed there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the action or denying further relief given long-standing procedural issues.
Goodheart argued that because her expert report was only four days late or potentially unnecessary she should have been allowed either more time or permitted to proceed without it; however neither argument persuaded either trial or appellate courts since both focused not only on missed deadlines but also broader patterns of delay impacting fairness toward defendants—including evidence lost through deaths or illness among key witnesses during extended proceedings.
Representing appellant Shirley A. Goodheart were attorneys Paul E. Kiel and James N. Barletti from Gold Albanese Barletti LLC; Catherine De Angelis represented American Multi-Cinema Inc., joined by Nicholas C. Malet from Weber Gallagher; Michael Della Rovere represented Frederick Wieder via O’Toole Couch & Della Rovere LLC. The case is identified as Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A-1988-24.
Source: A198824_Goodheart_v_Wieder_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf