SARA BACON VS. BOB CIASULLI AUTO GROUP, INC. d/b/aTOYOTA UNIVERSE(L-3403-14, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                      NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
    Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
    parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-4914-15T1
    SARA BACON,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    BOB CIASULLI AUTO GROUP, INC.
    d/b/a TOYOTA UNIVERSE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________________________________
    Argued June 19, 2017 – Decided July 11, 2017
    Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New
    Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket
    No. L-3403-14.
    Resa T. Drasin argued the cause for appellant
    (Woehling Law Firm, P.C., attorneys; Ms.
    Drasin, of counsel and on the brief).
    Sander D. Friedman argued the cause for
    respondent (Law Office of Sander D. Friedman,
    LLC, attorneys; Mr. Friedman and Wesley Hanna,
    on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    In 2008, plaintiff Sara Bacon purchased a new 2008 Toyota
    from defendant Bob Ciasulli Auto Group, Inc.; she also separately
    purchased an extended warranty, covering the vehicle for seven
    years or 100,000 miles, whichever came first. A few months later,
    without communicating with plaintiff, defendant cancelled her
    extended warranty and made no effort to reimburse plaintiff the
    $1816 she paid for the warranty.
    Plaintiff learned of defendant's cancellation of her extended
    warranty in 2013, when she took her five-year-old vehicle, which
    had only been driven 75,940 miles, to another Toyota dealership
    to ascertain the cause for "a banging noise" when the vehicle was
    in reverse. This other dealer advised plaintiff the cost of
    diagnosing the problem and, also, then determined plaintiff's
    warranty was cancelled in 2008.
    After some discussion with defendant to address the warranty
    cancellation, and facing approximately $6000 in repairs, plaintiff
    commenced this action in January 2014, seeking relief pursuant to
    the   Consumer    Fraud   Act,   N.J.S.A.   56:8-1   to   -20.1   After   the
    completion   of   discovery,     the   parties   cross-moved   for   summary
    judgment; plaintiff argued the circumstances, which were not in
    dispute, demonstrated a CFA violation, and defendant argued that
    1
    In earlier proceedings, defendant unsuccessfully moved to compel
    arbitration of these disputes. We affirmed because the arbitration
    clause in question was contained in the contract of sale of the
    vehicle, not the separate contract by which plaintiff purchased
    the extended warranty. Bacon v. Bob Ciasulli Auto Grp., Inc., No.
    A-0789-14 (App. Div. May 7, 2015).
    2                             A-4914-15T1
    plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages or that she was the cause
    of the vehicle's problems. By order entered on December 4, 2015,
    Judge Ernest M. Caposela granted plaintiff's motion and denied
    defendant's. In granting the former, the judge explained in his
    written opinion that the CFA was violated because defendant:
    misrepresented       that   plaintiff       consented    to   the   warranty's
    cancellation;       retained    plaintiff's      $1816   payment;    and    left
    plaintiff uncovered by the extended warranty.
    Judge Caposela's decision left undecided questions concerning
    the quantum of damages. The parties consented to a waiver of a
    jury trial, and by way of a short bench trial, another judge
    considered    the    evidence    and   awarded    compensatory      damages    to
    plaintiff    in   the   amount    of   $6559.17,    which     was   trebled    to
    $19,677.51. The judge also awarded counsel fees in plaintiff's
    favor in the amount of $79,145.30.
    Defendant appeals, arguing:
    I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY
    JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST
    DEFENDANT AND IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
    FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.[2]
    II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THE AMOUNT OF
    DAMAGES AWARDED BECAUSE THE ONLY DAMAGES
    PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT WAS
    THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE
    EXTENDED SERVICE CONTRACT.
    2
    For convenience, we have omitted the subparts to Point I.
    3                               A-4914-15T1
    III. THE AMOUNT OF THE ATTORNEYS FEES AND
    COSTS AWARDED WAS EXCESSIVE AND NOT REASONABLE
    AND MUST BE REDUCED.
    We reject defendant's Point I and affirm the December 4, 2015
    order, which granted in part plaintiff's summary judgment and
    denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, substantially for
    the reasons expressed by Judge Caposela in his written opinion.
    In its second point, defendant argues that any ascertainable
    loss   was   not   the   cost   of   the   transmission   work   the   vehicle
    required, which the judge found amounted to $6559.17, but the cost
    of the warranty, which was $1816. We reject this. Although it is
    true that, by way of the summary judgment ruling, the court found
    the CFA violation consisted of defendant's cancellation of the
    warranty, the appropriate compensation for that violation was not
    the return of the cost of the warranty but the cost of the repairs
    that would have been covered had the warranty not been wrongfully
    cancelled.    Consequently,     the   trial   judge   properly   found     that
    plaintiff should be compensated for the transmission work, and the
    law requires that that award be trebled, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19.
    We cannot reach the merits of defendant's Point III. Following
    the judge's damages ruling, plaintiff moved for entry of a final
    judgment, seeking $83,379.25 in fees and costs, also allowable by
    way of the CFA. Plaintiff's fee request was supported by her
    attorney's certification, which outlined his experience in the
    4                               A-4914-15T1
    field, the services rendered, his billing rates, and his particular
    fee agreement with plaintiff. Defendant vigorously opposed the fee
    application.
    The judge did not entertain oral argument on the motion's
    return   date,   nor   did   he   explain   his   rationale    for   awarding
    $75,145.30, except for the following notation written on the bottom
    of the June 2, 2016 final judgment:
    This court found reasonable attorneys fees to
    be $69,028.00. This court allowed [a] 10%
    enhancement as the violation under the CFA was
    obvious[,] and this court allowed costs of
    $3214.25.
    It is self-evident that these bare conclusions do not comply with
    the   requirements     of    Rule   1:7-4(a)      or   the   fully-developed
    jurisprudence applicable to fee requests. See, e.g., Rendine v.
    Pantzer, 
    141 N.J. 292
     (1995). We vacate the award of fees and
    costs, and remand for further proceedings and detailed findings
    of fact.
    We find any other arguments that may be discerned from
    defendant's submissions to be without sufficient merit to warrant
    further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    We affirm the December 4, 2015 summary judgment order, and
    we affirm that part of the June 2, 2016 final judgment that awarded
    plaintiff $19,677.51. We vacate that part of the June 2, 2016
    final judgment that awarded $79,145.30 in counsel fees, and we
    5                               A-4914-15T1
    remand for findings of fact on the quantum of fees and costs. We
    do not retain jurisdiction.
    6                         A-4914-15T1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4914-15T1

Filed Date: 7/11/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/11/2017