4th Circ. Refuses To Rethink Payday Loan Arbitration Ruling
Law360, New York (March 1, 2016, 5:25 PM ET) — The Fourth Circuit on Tuesday denied a bid by a Nevada collection agency with ties to a South Dakota tribe for rehearing of the court’s recent ruling that the company couldn’t arbitrate claims from a putative class of payday loan borrowers, despite the company’s claims the decision could lead to widespread invalidation of arbitration agreements.
Does a business such as a law firm, gas station, boutique or other ongoing business entity have the right to sue under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud (CFA) (UDAP) Act when they have been a victim of consumer fraud? YES
The answer is yes under most circumstances. The courts have interpreted the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to apply to businesses (as a plaintiff) as they acting a a regular consumer. If a business is like in consumer and consuming a good then they are able to pursue a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. This business would have the same rights as any other person which would be triple damages, attorney’s fees and costs. This would be assuming that the business demonstrate an ascertainable loss related to the fraudulent conduct. Just because plaintiff is a business does not rule them out from being a plaintiff in a case.
The sole issue is whether or not the business is acting as a consumer or business. As an example, there was a case which was decided in the New Jersey courts that held as a re seller of ink cartridges there were no claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In that transaction the court held that business which had filed suit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was acting as a business and reselling the ink cartridges rather than consuming them.
Does New Jersey have a Lemon Law? Yes there is a new and used car lemon law that can be filed in Superior Court or in Administrative Court … – The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC – Google+
A New Jersey jury on Thursday awarded $2.9 million to a class of surgical technology students who alleged Star Career Academy misrepresented their career prospects in the wake of a 2012 law that imposed stricter accreditation standards on the profession.
Opposition to the defendants attempt to force arbitration
Dear Judge xxxxx:
Please accept the following brief in lieu of a more formal brief thereof.
This litigation arises out of the plaintiff’s alleged refinance of two separate vehicles from the defendant, CAR DEALER. (See Exhibit A: Complaint, Count 1, paragraph 1). The vehicles involved were a 2010 Nissan Pathfinder and a 2010 Nissan Sentra, two separate vehicles, two separate transactions. (See Exhibit A). The plaintiff has alleged that these two separate and distinct transactions were subject to inappropriate conduct by the defendant and the plaintiff has sustained damages in each specific transaction.
The defendant relies upon the attached arbitration clause that states:
“The Parties, customer and dealer, identified below, hereinafter collectively *** agreed to settle by arbitration any claim, dispute or controversy, including all federal and state statutory or non-statutory claims that may arise out of the sale related to the finance and purchase and re lease of the vehicle identified below.” See Exhibit B, arbitration agreement At the bottom of the Arbitration Agreement, it lists the vehicle with the last five numbers in the vehicle identification number as 12984. It is apparent, that the Arbitration Agreement identified by the defendant applies to the plaintiff’s transaction for the used 2010 Nissan Sentra, vehicle identification no. 12984. Thus, as such, even if the Court were willing to assume there is a valid Arbitration Agreement and it is enforceable, the defendant should be bound by the terms of the agreement and have to arbitrate disputes related to the Nissan Sentra.
FACTS – SUMMATION
The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has committed fraud/consumer fraud. The dealer advised the plaintiff that the car was without accident both verbally and in writing. The plaintiff proved (CARFAX) and it was admitted (Defense expert testimony) that the car was in a previous accident. Defense only disputed severity of the accident. Defense expert and the General Manager admitted that the dealer probably knew of the prior damage. He actually testified that the dealer did know that the car was in an accident. The car was inspected by used car manager, technicians, certification process (Lexus trained techs looking for accident damage) and elcometer use on car acquisitions. (THE USED CAR MANAGER NEVER TURNED UP TO TESTIFY) Even more significant is that this was a dealer not a Chevy dealer!! Who would be in a better position to know that the car was not in MFGR-HIGHLINE- FRONT LINE CONDITION? Nobody. The dealer’s claim or assertion of ignorance as to any prior damage is both insulting and incredulous. The Manufacturer representative testified that bondo should not be used on certified cars (not Lexus quality repair) and any through panel penetration would render a car non-certifiable. (This was his initial testimony and then there was a break and Ms. Lawyer asked him the same question and his answer mysteriously changed)