NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0038-24
NAVAN DEEP KAUR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RIGHT AT HOME OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Submitted October 21, 2025 – Decided December 23, 2025
Before Judges Sumners and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1436-24.
Navan Deep Kaur, self-represented appellant.
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, attorneys for respondent (Christopher R. Paldino, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Navan Deep Kaur contracted with defendant Right at Home of
Central New Jersey to provide in-home care services for plaintiff's disabled brother. Plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently breached the contract and
provided subpar care, causing her to miss another sibling's wedding and to suffer
consequential damages. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and willful and wanton misconduct.
On July 12, 2024, the trial court granted defendant's Rule 4:6-2(e) motion
to dismiss the claims for consequential damages, negligence, and misconduct,
leaving only the breach of contract claim. On the same day, plaintiff accepted
an offer of judgment of $5,000 in satisfaction of all claims in her complaint.
Plaintiff later unsuccessfully moved to reopen the litigation. On
September 25, 2024, having enforced the parties' settlement agreement, the court
dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff now appeals from the July 12, 2024 order dismissing her claims.
After considering the record in light of the governing legal principles, we
conclude that plaintiff's appeal is procedurally barred because she settled all
claims by accepting the offer of judgment and did not preserve her right to
appeal from the July 12, 2024 ruling order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
I.
Plaintiff hired defendant to provide home health care services for
plaintiff's incapacitated brother for approximately five days, from June 16, 2021
A-0038-24 2 through June 21, 2021, so that plaintiff could attend her younger brother's
wedding. The caregiver was to be a live-in, certified home health aide,
providing twenty-four-hour care for the duration of the wedding festivities.
Plaintiff paid defendant $2,115 in advance for the services.
Plaintiff alleges that the caretaker neglected her brother, causing her to
miss the wedding, and defendant did not send a replacement caregiver upon her
request. Two years later, in May 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint against
defendant, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the
"Consumer Affairs of New Jersey." A year later, plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the claim of willful and wanton misconduct. Although the
underlying contract barred the recovery of consequential damages, plaintiff
amended her complaint to claim $35,750 in damages consisting of various
wedding expenses.
On July 12, 2024, the court partially dismissed plaintiff's claims under
Rule 4:6-2(e) for failing to state a claim under which relief could be granted.
Only the breach of contract claim remained. The same day, plaintiff accepted
and signed an offer of judgment of $5,000 for all claims associated with the
matter, thereby settling the case.
A-0038-24 3 On July 17, 2024, plaintiff submitted an uncertified statement to the court
advising that the offer of judgment was limited to the breach of contract claim
only. However, on July 30, 2024, the court issued an amended order 1
memorializing plaintiff's acceptance of the offer of judgment, emphasizing that
the offer was made "in satisfaction of all claims against [] [d]efendant including
any and all claims for interest, costs, expenses, and/or attorneys' fees in
connection with the above matter."
On August 5, 2024, plaintiff unsuccessfully moved to reopen the case,
contending the parties had not agreed to the final settlement terms and that the
court improperly amended its July 18, 2024 judgment. In response, defendant
cross-moved to enforce the settlement. On September 13, 2024, the court
granted defendant's motion, enforcing the settlement. Shortly thereafter, on
September 25, 2024, the court issued a final order dismissing plaintiff's entire
amended complaint with prejudice. In her notice of appeal, plaintiff does not
challenge either the September 13, 2024 or September 25, 2024 orders, only the
1 Footnote one of the July 30, 2024 order states that the order amends the July 18, 2024 order, which "erroneously stated 'plus costs.'" The record does not contain the July 18, 2024 order. A-0038-24 4 July 12, 2024 order. See R. 2:5-1(f)(2)(ii) (the notice of appeal "shall also
designate the judgment, decision, action, or rule . . . appealed from").
In an August 6, 2024 letter to the court, defendant's counsel confirmed
that the $5,000 settlement check had been delivered to plaintiff. Although
plaintiff asserted the check would be returned, she acknowledged that it had
been "mistakenly" deposited. This appeal of the July 12, 2024 order followed.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court made errors of law and of fact.
Specifically, she claims the "standard of dismissal" under Rule 4:6-2(e) was not
met; the trial court erred by misstating plaintiff's claims and by finding that
defendant owed no duty to plaintiff.
II.
We begin with the threshold issue of jurisdiction to decide this appeal
following the parties' settlement agreement. As noted, following the partial
dismissal of plaintiff's claims on July 12, 2024, the parties settled the case. In
accordance with their voluntary settlement, the court dismissed the case, which
included those claims dismissed by the court on July 12, 2024, as well as the
remaining breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2024, the court enforced
the settlement, and plaintiff does not challenge this order. Defendant contends
plaintiff's appeal is moot because the entirety of the underlying amended
A-0038-24 5 complaint was voluntarily settled. Because plaintiff did not file a reply brief,
she has not opposed this argument.
Our state has a strong public policy in favor of settlements. Brundage v.
Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601 (2008). "Generally, an order consented
to . . . is not appealable." O'Loughlin v Nat'l Cmty. Bank, 338 N.J. Super. 592,
602 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N.J. 240, 255 (1950));
Keller v. Lozzi, 7 N.J. 17, 26 (1951) (holding that a dismissal of a suit made
after the parties enter an agreement is a dismissal on the merits and bars further
litigation on the same subject). "This is because the rule allowing an appeal as
of right from a final judgment contemplates a judgment entered involuntarily
against the losing party." N.J. Sch. Constr. Corp. v. Lopez, 412 N.J. Super. 298,
308-09 (App. Div. 2010) (citing Cooper Med. Ctr. v. Boyd, 179 N.J. Super. 53,
56 (App. Div. 1981)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0038-24
NAVAN DEEP KAUR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RIGHT AT HOME OF CENTRAL NEW JERSEY,
Defendant-Respondent. _________________________
Submitted October 21, 2025 – Decided December 23, 2025
Before Judges Sumners and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-1436-24.
Navan Deep Kaur, self-represented appellant.
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, attorneys for respondent (Christopher R. Paldino, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Navan Deep Kaur contracted with defendant Right at Home of
Central New Jersey to provide in-home care services for plaintiff's disabled brother. Plaintiff alleged that defendant negligently breached the contract and
provided subpar care, causing her to miss another sibling's wedding and to suffer
consequential damages. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and willful and wanton misconduct.
On July 12, 2024, the trial court granted defendant's Rule 4:6-2(e) motion
to dismiss the claims for consequential damages, negligence, and misconduct,
leaving only the breach of contract claim. On the same day, plaintiff accepted
an offer of judgment of $5,000 in satisfaction of all claims in her complaint.
Plaintiff later unsuccessfully moved to reopen the litigation. On
September 25, 2024, having enforced the parties' settlement agreement, the court
dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff now appeals from the July 12, 2024 order dismissing her claims.
After considering the record in light of the governing legal principles, we
conclude that plaintiff's appeal is procedurally barred because she settled all
claims by accepting the offer of judgment and did not preserve her right to
appeal from the July 12, 2024 ruling order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
I.
Plaintiff hired defendant to provide home health care services for
plaintiff's incapacitated brother for approximately five days, from June 16, 2021
A-0038-24 2 through June 21, 2021, so that plaintiff could attend her younger brother's
wedding. The caregiver was to be a live-in, certified home health aide,
providing twenty-four-hour care for the duration of the wedding festivities.
Plaintiff paid defendant $2,115 in advance for the services.
Plaintiff alleges that the caretaker neglected her brother, causing her to
miss the wedding, and defendant did not send a replacement caregiver upon her
request. Two years later, in May 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint against
defendant, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the
"Consumer Affairs of New Jersey." A year later, plaintiff amended her
complaint, adding the claim of willful and wanton misconduct. Although the
underlying contract barred the recovery of consequential damages, plaintiff
amended her complaint to claim $35,750 in damages consisting of various
wedding expenses.
On July 12, 2024, the court partially dismissed plaintiff's claims under
Rule 4:6-2(e) for failing to state a claim under which relief could be granted.
Only the breach of contract claim remained. The same day, plaintiff accepted
and signed an offer of judgment of $5,000 for all claims associated with the
matter, thereby settling the case.
A-0038-24 3 On July 17, 2024, plaintiff submitted an uncertified statement to the court
advising that the offer of judgment was limited to the breach of contract claim
only. However, on July 30, 2024, the court issued an amended order 1
memorializing plaintiff's acceptance of the offer of judgment, emphasizing that
the offer was made "in satisfaction of all claims against [] [d]efendant including
any and all claims for interest, costs, expenses, and/or attorneys' fees in
connection with the above matter."
On August 5, 2024, plaintiff unsuccessfully moved to reopen the case,
contending the parties had not agreed to the final settlement terms and that the
court improperly amended its July 18, 2024 judgment. In response, defendant
cross-moved to enforce the settlement. On September 13, 2024, the court
granted defendant's motion, enforcing the settlement. Shortly thereafter, on
September 25, 2024, the court issued a final order dismissing plaintiff's entire
amended complaint with prejudice. In her notice of appeal, plaintiff does not
challenge either the September 13, 2024 or September 25, 2024 orders, only the
1 Footnote one of the July 30, 2024 order states that the order amends the July 18, 2024 order, which "erroneously stated 'plus costs.'" The record does not contain the July 18, 2024 order. A-0038-24 4 July 12, 2024 order. See R. 2:5-1(f)(2)(ii) (the notice of appeal "shall also
designate the judgment, decision, action, or rule . . . appealed from").
In an August 6, 2024 letter to the court, defendant's counsel confirmed
that the $5,000 settlement check had been delivered to plaintiff. Although
plaintiff asserted the check would be returned, she acknowledged that it had
been "mistakenly" deposited. This appeal of the July 12, 2024 order followed.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court made errors of law and of fact.
Specifically, she claims the "standard of dismissal" under Rule 4:6-2(e) was not
met; the trial court erred by misstating plaintiff's claims and by finding that
defendant owed no duty to plaintiff.
II.
We begin with the threshold issue of jurisdiction to decide this appeal
following the parties' settlement agreement. As noted, following the partial
dismissal of plaintiff's claims on July 12, 2024, the parties settled the case. In
accordance with their voluntary settlement, the court dismissed the case, which
included those claims dismissed by the court on July 12, 2024, as well as the
remaining breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2024, the court enforced
the settlement, and plaintiff does not challenge this order. Defendant contends
plaintiff's appeal is moot because the entirety of the underlying amended
A-0038-24 5 complaint was voluntarily settled. Because plaintiff did not file a reply brief,
she has not opposed this argument.
Our state has a strong public policy in favor of settlements. Brundage v.
Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575, 601 (2008). "Generally, an order consented
to . . . is not appealable." O'Loughlin v Nat'l Cmty. Bank, 338 N.J. Super. 592,
602 (App. Div. 2001) (citing Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N.J. 240, 255 (1950));
Keller v. Lozzi, 7 N.J. 17, 26 (1951) (holding that a dismissal of a suit made
after the parties enter an agreement is a dismissal on the merits and bars further
litigation on the same subject). "This is because the rule allowing an appeal as
of right from a final judgment contemplates a judgment entered involuntarily
against the losing party." N.J. Sch. Constr. Corp. v. Lopez, 412 N.J. Super. 298,
308-09 (App. Div. 2010) (citing Cooper Med. Ctr. v. Boyd, 179 N.J. Super. 53,
56 (App. Div. 1981)).
"There is, however, an exception to this general rule against appealability
where parties to a consent judgment reserve the right to appeal an interlocutory
order 'by providing that the judgment would be vacated if the interlocutory order
were reversed on appeal.'" N.J. Sch. Constr. Corp., 412 N.J. Super. at 309
(quoting Janicky v. Point Bay Fuel, Inc., 410 N.J. Super. 203, 207 (App. Div.
2009)). "Parties are always free to preserve any claim they might have pursuant
A-0038-24 6 to a court rule or otherwise when settling a case." Serico v. Rothberg, 448 N.J.
Super. 604, 615 (App. Div. 2017). However, "they must clearly state that
intention at the time of the settlement." Ibid.
In this case, if plaintiff intended to preserve her right to appeal the July
12, 2024 involuntary dismissal of her claims, it was her obligation to "clearly
indicate that [she] retained [the] right to [appeal the court's dismissal] and that
the entire matter was not being resolved by the [offer of judgment]." Ibid.
Plaintiff made no such statement on the record or in writing at the time she
accepted the offer of judgment. Plaintiff failed to preserve her right to appeal
the dismissal of any claims when accepting the offer of judgment. She also
effectively waived her right to appeal the July 12, 2024 order by accepting the
offer of judgment, as evidenced by her signature on the offer, cashing the
settlement check and not preserving her right to appeal the previously dismissed
court ruling.
Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to accept the offer of judgment and settle the
case in its entirety following the court's ruling on defendant's Rule 4:6-2(e)
motion to dismiss. The settlement barred any further litigation, including any
appeal. In light of the parties' settlement, we decline to consider plaintiff's
substantive arguments. Doing so would undermine the finality of settlement
A-0038-24 7 agreements. Moreover, "our courts have refused to vacate final settlements
absent compelling circumstances." Kaur v. Assured Lending Corp., 405 N.J.
Super. 468, 475 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super.
118, 125 (App. Div. 1983)). We discern no such circumstances here.
Appeal dismissed.
A-0038-24 8