Unpublished Opinions for the Week of July 31, 2017
07-2-3825 Jones v. S. Jersey Industries, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Plaintiff appealed the verdict for defendant employer in his…
July 27, 2017 at 03:48 PM
77 minute read
07-2-3825 Jones v. S. Jersey Industries, Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) Plaintiff appealed the verdict for defendant employer in his discrimination action. Plaintiff contended that the jury instructions and the manner in which deliberations were carried out were fatally flawed. During jury selection, the trial judge told the jury that they would have Fridays off. During deliberations, the jury asked several questions and received the charges in writing. The second day of deliberations, the jury told the judge they were stuck at a vote of four to four and asked for advice. They were told to keep deliberating. At the end of the day, the jury was told to return the next day, which was a Friday. The court attendant reported that one juror said he had a “problem” with Friday, but all jurors showed up the next morning and they reached a verdict. Plaintiff argued that the supplemental jury instructions and requiring the jury to come in on a Friday had an inherent coercive effect. The court found that the record did not support plaintiff's argument. The jury had the full written instructions during deliberations and the record showed that it was an active jury that was comfortable asking questions. The judge's instructions were designed to assure the jury that their efforts were appreciated and the timeline countered the suggestion that the jury was coerced.
09-2-3826 Grant v. Dan's Auto Body, L.L.C., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Following an automobile accident in 2007, appellant brought her vehicle to respondents for repairs. She subsequently returned for a repainting of her hood in 2013. While leaving the premises, the brakes failed and a police report observed that brake fluid appeared to be leaking from one of the rear tires. Appellant filed the underlying complaint alleging that poor-quality parts were used to repair the vehicle causing damage which was not discoverable until the brake failure. Appellant contended respondent was negligent in making repairs both in 2007 and 2013 as well as violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. Upon motion, the trial court granted respondent's summary judgment finding appellant's claims were outside the statute of limitations, failure to substantiate claims with expert testimony under the rules of N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, and lack of standing to investigate licensees under N.J.S.A. 39:13-1. Further, the trial judge found respondents did not violate the CFA as appellant signed invoices and the repaint job was completed without compensation. On appeal, the court affirmed holding the 2007 repairs complied with the CFA and the repaint job was completed for apparent good will. As such, appellant suffered no ascertainable loss and there was no evidence of unlawful conduct under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. The court found no error in dismissal of the CFA claims as to the 2007 repairs or the granting of summary judgment with regard to the 2013 allegations.
09-3-3854 Walker v. All Points Auto. & Towing, Inc., N.J. Super Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.) (7 pp.) Defendant towing company moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's action alleging violations of the Predatory Towing Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act by charging an administrative fee. Plaintiff was stopped by the police because his vehicle was not registered and police called defendant to tow the vehicle. Plaintiff retrieved the vehicle several days later after the police released it and he paid the towing charge, storage charge and the administrative fee without objection. He sued ten months later. Plaintiff never filed any complaint with or even approached the Division of Consumer Affairs as required by N.J.A.C. §13:45A-31.4(f). He filed this putative class action without any attempt to resolve the dispute with defendants. The plain language of the statute required plaintiff to use good faith efforts to resolve the dispute. Additionally, the fees charged by defendant were in compliance with the N.J. Regulations and borough ordinances. [Filed July 24, 2017]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Funding Bill Advances in NJ Senate, Despite Pushback Over Making Loans Discoverable
5 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250