01-2-9194 In the Matter of Princeton Branch Ry. Station, App. Div. (per curiam) (16 pp.) Appellants Save the Dinky Inc., a nonprofit group of citizens organized by and composed of persons who use the branch rail line between Princeton and Princeton Junction, Anne Neumann and the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers appealed from the adoption by the board of directors of the New Jersey Transit Corporation of a June 25, 2013, resolution that facilitated the relocation of the Dinky line terminus and station 460 feet south of its site on real property that had been sold by NJT to Princeton University in 1984. The panel affirmed. It concluded that NJT’s real property swap with Princeton requiring the relocation of the Dinky line station did not represent an abandonment of passenger rail services and, therefore, N.J.S.A. 27:25-8(d) was inapplicable; and appellants’ argument that NJT scheduled the June 25, 2013, special board meeting in violation of the required notice provisions of the New Jersey Transportation Act failed. The panel rejected as speculative appellants’ claim that NJT must have discussed, in the course of a nonpublic meeting prior to the June 2013 meeting, that the notice provisions mandated by N.J.S.A. 27:25-8(d) did not apply to the proposed action regarding the realty transfer with Princeton, and thereby violated the Open Public Meetings Act. The panel also found no procedural irregularities or legal infirmities in the board’s notice and conduct of the telephonic June 2013 meeting.
03-2-9178 Dvorak v. AW Dev. LLC, App. Div. (12 pp.) Plaintiffs, who had entered into a contract to purchase a manufactured home from defendant, filed a complaint alleging that they had paid in excess of the contract price and that the home had not been timely delivered. They asserted claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, tortious interference, and a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Defendant moved to dismiss, asserting that the action was barred by the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. They appealed the Law Division orders granting defendant’s motion and denying their motion for reconsideration. The panel reversed, finding that the arbitration provision did not clearly and unmistakably waive plaintiffs’ right to file a lawsuit and was unconscionable. The panel said the provision was ambiguous with respect to whether a party must resort to nonbinding arbitration as a precondition to filing suit; it did not expressly empower a party to shift the forum to an arbitrator after a lawsuit had been filed; the jury waiver provision obscured which disputes were subject to nonbinding arbitration; and the clause referred to “nonbinding arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association,” but the CIA rules make no mention of a nonbinding process. Further, the panel found that the contract was one of adhesion since defendant had greater bargaining power because plaintiffs needed a new home to replace one destroyed by Superstorm Sandy; defendant reserved for itself the right to cure any default while denying plaintiffs a comparable right; plaintiffs could not seek any consequential damages but defendant’s right to do so was unfettered; and defendant reserved for itself the power to seek injunctive and emergent relief, while plaintiffs could not seek such relief “under any circumstances.”
