In this case the defendant is alleged to have sold a damaged certified car to the plaintiff who sued them in New Jersey. The dealership was not incorporated in New Jersey and was not physically located in New Jersey.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY/SUMMARY OF THE CASE
This claim arises out of the plaintiff’s purchase of a $40,000 ‘certified used Porsche Cayenne‘ from the defendant, XXXX that was significantly damaged, despite representations to the contrary. Soon after the plaintiff’s complaint was filed in or about April 2009, the defendant, XXX., filed a motion to dismiss alleging that there were insufficient contacts in the State of New Jersey to require XXX to defend the case in the State of New Jersey. In the initial motion for dismissal, the defendant, XXX, asserted the following:
Because of XXX close proximity to New Jersey, defendant does not pretend that it would offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to have to defend itself (at some point) in New Jersey.
In the statement of facts and brief submitted to the court, the defendant, XXX., claimed that there were insufficient substantial contacts with the State of New Jersey. In this motion, the defendant, Manhattan Motorcars, conveniently and intentionally omitted:
• that they advertised on WCBS radio;
• that they sold in excess of $54 million worth of cars in the State of New Jersey for the time period 2006 to 2010;(over 400 cars);
• that approximately 15% of the their workforce resides in the state of New Jersey;
• that they utilized the internet significantly and substantially to inquire leads, meaning forward interested customers to their website and/or their dealership through various online resources.
As a result of the defendant’s contentions that there were insufficient minimum contacts, the court ordered that there was discovery to be conducted associated with the ‘substantial and continuous’ contacts with the State of New Jersey to determine whether or not there were sufficient contacts to determine whether or not there was ‘general’ and/or specific jurisdiction in this matter.
After a significant period of time, the plaintiff propounded interrogatories upon the defendant and it has been discerned that there in fact has been continuous and systematic contacts with the State of New Jersey that the defendant omitted from its initial pleadings to the court. This discovery has yielded significant ongoing and continuous contacts with the State of New Jersey including:
• $54 million worth of sales to the State of New Jersey;
• Additional 30 cars swapped with residents of the State of New Jersey;
• 15% of the workforce employed in the State of New Jersey;
• Significant tri-state area advertising through WCBS radio;
• Significant online lead generation through numerous websites which proliferate over the internet;
In addition, the certification submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s motion indicates that there are sufficient contacts for the specific transaction to warrant jurisdiction over the defendant as a result of the facts specific to the transaction including, but not limited to, delivering of the vehicle to the State of New Jersey.
The defendant’s motion should be denied because there is both specific and general jurisdiction.
The defendants XXX have filed a factual summary judgment motion as to the allegations under the Consumer Fraud Act. This is improper and unfair since NO discovery has been permitted on ANY fact issues per court orders. This motion cannot be opposed by the plaintiff since there has been no opportunity to conduct discovery. The plaintiff actually filed a summary judgment motion previously which was either denied or withdrawn due the prohibition of factual discovery, since the defendants have filed their first motions over a year-and-a-half ago. The plaintiff only submits facts that address the general jurisdiction over this defendant.