New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. Photo by Carmen Natale.

Claims against a pair of Cherry Hill auto dealers who auto buyers say defrauded them through bait-and-switch tactics must arbitrate their claims, said the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The court in Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp. reversed an Appellate Division ruling that was contrary to earlier decisions by lower courts compelling the plaintiffs to arbitrate.

In so doing, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the dealerships, who argued that the enforceability of an arbitration agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide and not the court.

“The trial courts' resolution of these matters was correct and consistent with clear rulings from the United States Supreme Court that bind state and federal courts on how challenges such as plaintiffs' should proceed,” Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for the unanimous court on June 5. “Those rulings do not permit threshold issues about overall contract validity to be resolved by the courts when the arbitration agreement itself is not specifically challenged.

“Here, plaintiffs attack the sales contracts in their entirety, not the language or clarity of the agreements to arbitrate or the broad delegation clauses contained in those signed arbitration agreements,” LaVecchia wrote. “The [U.S.] Supreme Court's precedent compels only one conclusion: an arbitrator must resolve plaintiffs' claims about the validity of their sales contracts as well as any arbitrability claims that plaintiffs may choose to raise.”

Plaintiffs Sasha Robinson and Janell Goffe are represented by Cherry Hill attorney Charles Riley. He did not return a call for comment.

The dealerships are represented by Laura Ruccolo of Capehart & Scatchard in Mount Laurel. Ruccolo also did not return a call.