HDRB&B congratulates Kelly A. Zampino and Mark A. Berman on an important appellate victory on behalf of @Noah Bank.
In a published decision issued on April 1, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Noah Bank, in a matter of first impression.
Noah Bank had been sued by a former employee for, among other claims, a cause of action under CEPA for alleged blacklisting following the employee’s termination by the bank. When HDRB&B substituted as counsel for Noah Bank after the litigation already had commenced, we immediately moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but the then-presiding judge denied the motion on procedural grounds, ruling that the motion to dismiss was untimely under Rule 4:6-2(e) because an answer already had been filed on behalf of Noah Bank. Later, when a new judge was assigned, HDRB&B again moved to dismiss, and the motion was granted.
On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the trial court’s reconsideration of the presiding judge’s prior interpretation of Rule 4:6-2(e). The Appellate Division agreed with HDRB&B’s interpretation of the rule. Specifically, the appellate court held that a motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e) can still be adjudicated even after an answer has been filed, as long as the defense is preserved in the answer. The Appellate Division’s decision brings clarity to a previously discombobulated area of New Jersey civil procedure.
The Appellate Division also agreed there was no basis for the plaintiff’s other claims against Noah Bank. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Noah Bank on plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, defamation, and harm to business reputation.