New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

We won the appeal. The Appellate division determined that the the trial level made a mistake by dismissing the complaint on the summary judgment motion filed by the dealership and their lawyers.

A jury believing plaintiff's description of the events could find that agents of Triplex sold a new car to plaintiff indirectly, through his parents who were acting as his agents, by falsely advertising the value of a trade-in and falsely promising to recast the loan if he paid the loan for eight months. The jurors could also find that as a consequence of Triplex's false pretense and promise, plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss equivalent to the difference between the $8000 credit advertised by Triplex and the value Triplex gave for the 1999 Ford. On these facts Triplex is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law simply because plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement and was not legally obligated to pay the amount due. SeeBrill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (discussing the showing required for a grant of summary judgment).

Any successful appeal is a very impressive task since I have heard that only one in ten appeals are successful!! Nonetheless the court did the right thing in permitting the plaintiff to pursue his claim against the dealership. We are awaiting a trial date for this matter in Camden County Superior Court.

Jonathan Rudnick
Carton and Rudnick
788 Shrewsbury Avenue
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Lawyer

The plaintiff's case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.

Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08
Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2

The Superior Court dismissed the case because the plaintiff was unable to show an ascertainable loss and as such there was no violation of the Consumer Fraud Act shown.

This posting is not intended to demonstrate or imply the dealership did anything wrong or illegal, especially since the case was thrown out. The purpose is to post the majority of the brief that was submitted to the appellate division for the plaintiff requesting that the Appellate division overturn the lower court's decision.

To the Honorable Judges of the Appellate Division:

Procedural History
Plaintiff, Rodney Taylor, filed a complaint on March 17, 2008 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Camden against defendant/respondent, Cherry Hill Triplex. (Pa 18 – 24) Plaintiff’s complaint included causes of action for a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Defendant/respondent, Cherry Hill Triplex, filed an answer to the complaint on May 20, 2008. (Pa25-30) By order of the Superior Court on or about September 17, 2008, partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant/respondent dismissing plaintiff’s Truth in Lending Act claim. (Pa31-32)
On June 26, 2009, the Trial Court issued an order granting summary judgment to defendants for plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim which in effect dismissed plaintiff’s entire complaint with prejudice. (Pa1 – Pa2)
The Court entered this order on June 26, 2009 after hearing oral argument and stated its reason for the issuing of summary judgment on the record. (Pa8-Pa15)
On August 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court, appealing the Trial Court’s summary judgment order of June 26, 2009. (Pa 3-Pa7)

Posted by Jonathan Rudnick | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Consumer Lawyer