Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA” or “NJCFA”)

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to New Jersey’s Requirement of Express Waiver Language for Enforcement of Arbitration Provision in Consumer Contracts

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / General Litigation

On July 6, 2015

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in U.S. Legal Services Group v. Atalese, holding that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract was not enforceable because the contract’s language waiving the consumer’s right to sue was not clear and unambiguous. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision, which affects the enforceability of arbitration provisions interpreted under New Jersey law, directs that such provisions must clearly notify the parties of their waiver of the right to bring a lawsuit.

New Jersey Appellate Panel Upholds Pre-Discovery Dismissal of Weak Class Action Claims

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 2, 2015

In Myska, et al. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. et al., New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently upheld a pre-discovery striking of a complaint’s class allegations and dismissal of its Consumer Fraud Act claims because the complaint, the underlying policies, and other documents referenced by the complaint showed that class treatment was not warranted and that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their Consumer Fraud Act claims.

Third Circuit Confirms Prospective Application of New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton Decision, Dooming Underlying Class Action

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 21, 2015

In a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit, in Bohus, et al. v. Restaurant.com, held that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton decision — responding to a question of law certified by the Third Circuit as to the proper interpretation of the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) — may be applied prospectively, thus defeating the class claims and leaving only two individual claims for a $100 penalty.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds the UTPCPA’s “Ascertainable Loss” Requirement Cannot Be Manufactured by Voluntarily Hiring Counsel and Incurring Litigation Costs

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 20, 2015

In Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phila., LLC, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the retention of counsel to institute suit alone does not constitute “ascertainable loss” under the state’s consumer protection statute. The plaintiff in Grimes had rented a car from an Enterprise branch in Philadelphia and apparently declined to purchase Collision Damage Waiver or Loss Damage Waiver coverage.

Pleading Setback Stalls N.J. Moldy Washing Machine Class Action, Which Will Face Uncertainty in Light of Comcast

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 2, 2013

A New Jersey moldy washing machine class action suffered a big pleading setback after the District of New Jersey held that the lengthy complaint still contained insufficient detail to place the defendant on notice of the precise misconduct alleged. But even if plaintiffs replead their case, their ultimate goal of class certification may be stymied in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, and its collateral effect upon other defective washing machine putative class actions.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Archived Blog Posts