SHAQUANNA ROBINSON,ETC. VS. J&C AUTO OUTLET, LLC(L-1961-13, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1256-15T3
SHAQUANNA ROBINSON, on behalf
of herself and those similarly
situated,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
J & C AUTO OUTLET, LLC, and JORGE
CABAN,
Defendants-Appellants.
_______________________________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2017 – Decided June 9, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket
No. L-1961-13.
Kollar Law, LLC, attorneys for appellants
(David M. Koller, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Shaquanna Robinson commenced this action against
defendant J&C Auto Outlet, LLC, and its manager, defendant Jorge
Caban. Plaintiff claimed, on her own behalf, that defendants
misrepresented the condition of a vehicle she purchased. She also
asserted – on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly
situated – that an unexplained $199 documentary fee was improperly
charged.
On February 20, 2015, a judge granted partial summary judgment
against J&C only, finding the imposition of the $199 fee violated
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20,
the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Sales Practices Regulations, N.J.S.A.
13:45A-26B.3, and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-15. This order, however, did not resolve
plaintiff's claim against Caban regarding the $199 fee or the
claim against both defendants regarding the vehicle sale to
plaintiff.
The trial judge conducted a two-day, non-jury trial in July
2015, rendered an oral opinion on September 24, 2015, and entered
judgment on October 9, 2015. The judge found J&C and Caban jointly
and severally liable on plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation
with regard to the vehicle's condition and awarded compensatory
damages, which were trebled. The judge also imposed personal
liability on Caban for the damages suffered by the class members.
2 A-1256-15T3
Defendants appeal,1 arguing the judge's findings do not
support the imposition of individual liability on Caban for the
class action damages. We find insufficient merit in defendants'
arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E), and add only the following brief comments.
The judge made thorough findings regarding the condition of
the vehicle and in support of his determination that the CFA was
violated by both J&C and Caban with regard to the transaction. The
judge found Caban's attempt to refute plaintiff's proofs regarding
the vehicle's condition lacked credibility. These findings are
fully supported by the evidence and entitled to our deference.
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474,
483-84 (1974). Indeed, those rulings have not been challenged on
appeal. The appeal instead focuses on the judge's imposition of
personal liability on Caban for the regulatory violation regarding
the $199 fee.
Defendants' claim that the judge's findings are inadequate
regarding Caban's liability for the regulatory violation are
largely fueled by the judge's initial omission of this issue in
1
The notice of appeal was filed prior to finality being achieved
in the trial court. The October 9, 2015 judgment left unquantified
the attorney's fees to which plaintiff was entitled. An order that
presumably resolved all remaining issues was entered on January
22, 2016; plaintiff has not sought review of that order.
3 A-1256-15T3
his oral opinion. After the judge explained why he held Caban
personally liable for the fraudulent sale of the vehicle, questions
arose about the manner and method for quantifying, at a later
date, plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees. After that, as the
judge was concluding the proceeding, defense counsel inquired
about Caban's personal liability on the class action claims:
MR. KOLLER: Are you deciding, or have you
decided on the individual liability of the
class claim?
THE COURT: It would be the exact same thing,
because Mr. Caban is the only person who
operated this company. His testimony was he
was . . . solely responsible for making all
the decisions and supervising the employees,
and . . . deciding how much to charge for
anything.
The judge's reference to his findings on this point being
"the exact same thing," invoked his earlier determination holding
Caban personally liable for the damages resulting from the
misrepresentation of the vehicle's condition. In those earlier
findings, the judge found Caban to be "the manager" of J&C even
though Caban's fiancé "is the owner of" J&C. He determined, from
Caban's own testimony, that Caban "ran the company," it was "his
company," and he was "the person who handled all day[-]to[-]day
business activities." So viewed, we are satisfied the judge's
findings that Caban solely managed and operated J&C are more than
4 A-1256-15T3
sufficient to support the imposition of personal liability on all
aspects of the class and plaintiff's claims.
We lastly observe that we agree with defendants in one respect
worth noting: a determination of personal liability in this or
other similar settings may often vary on the particulars of the
consumer fraud asserted. That is, a salesman's misrepresentation
about a vehicle's condition might generate personal liability for
damages resulting therefrom but might not generate personal
liability regarding the billing department's inclusion of an
improper or unexplained fee. In short, those two wrongful events
may arise separately and may often be produced by the conduct of
different individuals each of whom should not be held personally
responsible for the conduct of the other. There is no such
distinction to be drawn here because, as the judge found, Caban
made all the decisions and operated all facets of the company. He
was the salesman who misrepresented the vehicle's condition to
plaintiff and he was the manager who decided to include the
unexplained $199 documentary fee.
Affirmed.
5 A-1256-15T3