A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a defendant in a consumer fraud action should have heeded a 20-day filing deadline in second attempts to force arbitration.

In a published decision, a three-judge Appellate Division panel on Feb. 16 affirmed a trial judge's ruling that said a Gloucester County car dealership was precluded from enforcing an arbitration clause contained in a sales agreement because its motion to reconsider came too late.

According to the decision, the matter involves a dispute between an auto buyer, Tashika Hayes, and a dealership, Turnersville Chrysler Jeep. Hayes filed a lawsuit against Turnersville in April 2016, alleging breach of contract, common-law fraud and consumer fraud in violation of the state's Consumer Fraud Act. Hayes had purchased a used car from Turnersville, then alleged that the dealership told her to return the car and forced her to trade that in and buy a new, more expensive car.

The sales contract contained a clause that required all disputes to be resolved through mandatory arbitration, according to the court. Turnersville filed a motion to compel arbitration on June 21, 2016.

Hayes challenged the motion, alleging that Turnersville exerted undue influence on her and engaged in an unconscionable bait and switch. She also contended that the dealership, in its conduct, violated the terms of the sales contract.

A Gloucester County Superior Court judge denied the motion to compel arbitration. The judiciary's online database of civil cases identifies the judge below as Gloucester County Superior Court Judge Jean B. McMaster.

Turnersville did not file a direct appeal. Instead, the dealership waited until Nov. 21, 2016, to file a motion for reconsideration at the trial court level, a delay of 101 days. The judge denied the motion for reconsideration. During the interim, Turnersville and Hayes were engaged in settlement talks and limited discovery, according to the decision.

On the dealership's appeal, Appellate Division Judge Jose Fuentes, joined by Judges Ellen Koblitz and Thomas Manahan, said court rules are clear that Turnersville should have filed its motion for reconsideration within 20 days of the original decision, and neither Turnersville nor the judge had the authority to waive that rule.

Orders denying arbitration are considered final, and unsuccessful parties should file timely appeals, Fuentes said.

“We hold that a motion seeking reconsideration for an order denying or granting a motion to enforce an arbitration agreement is not an interlocutory order [which] may always be reconsidered in good cause showing and in the interests of justice prior to entry of final judgment,” Fuentes said, citing the Appellate Division's 2005 ruling in Akhtar v. JDN Properties at Florham Park.

Fuentes quoted the state Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in GMAC v. Pitella. There, the court said a trial court order denying a motion to compel arbitration is final for purposes of appeal.

In that ruling, Fuentes said, the court added an admonition to “dispel any lingering doubt.”

“Because the order shall be deemed final, a timely appeal on the issue must be taken then or not at all,” the Pitella court said, Fuentes noted.

Neither Hayes' attorney, Steven Rothman of Vineland's Lipman, Antonelli, Batt, Gilson, Rothman & Capasso, nor the attorney for Turnersville, Laura Ruccolo of the Mount Laurel office of Capehart & Scatchard, were available for comment.