BRIAN A. PICCINETTI VS. GOLD'S GYM, INC. (L-0546-17, MERCER 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0894-18T1
BRIAN A. PICCINETTI, on
behalf of himself and others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GOLD'S GYM, INC., and
GOLD'S GYM OF EAST
WINDSOR,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________
Argued January 23, 2020 – Decided February 5, 2020
Before Judges Nugent and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-0546-17.
Gregg S. Sodini argued the cause for appellant Archer
Janny Enterprises, LLC (Cutolo Barros LLC, attorneys;
Gregg S. Sodini, on the briefs).
Ari H. Marcus argued the cause for respondent (Marcus
Zelman LLC, attorneys; Ari H. Marcus, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Archer Janny Enterprises, LLC (Archer Janny) 1 appeals from
the September 14, 2018 order of the Law Division denying its motion for
attorney's fees and costs. We vacate the order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
We derive the following facts from the record. Plaintiff Brian A.
Piccinetti filed a putative class action complaint in the Law Division alleging
claims under the Health Club Services Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-39 to -48, the
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20, and the Truth-In-Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18, arising from his
execution of a membership agreement at a health club operated by Archer Janny.
Piccinetti alleged the agreement violated the statutes because it contained an
automatic renewal clause, was binding for more than three years, and failed to
set forth in a conspicuous manner on its front page the total payment obligation
for the first year of membership.
After initial motion practice and discovery, Archer Janny sent Piccinetti a
written notice and demand pursuant to Rule 1:4-8(b)(1) to withdraw what Archer
1
Improperly pled as Gold's Gym, Inc., and Gold's Gym of East Windsor.
A-0894-18T1
2
Janny believed to be Piccinetti's frivolous complaint. Piccinetti did not
withdraw his complaint within the twenty-eight days permitted by the rule.
Archer Janny thereafter moved for summary judgment. Piccinetti opposed
the motion. On August 3, 2018, the trial court granted Archer Janny's motion
and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Archer Janny subsequently filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1. Archer Janny's notice of
motion requested oral argument pursuant to Rule 1:6-2(d).
On September 14, 2018, the court denied Archer Janny's motion without
having heard oral argument. The court did not issue written or oral findings of
fact and conclusions of law explaining its decision. The September 14, 2018
order indicates the motion was opposed.
This appeal followed. Prior to the filing of the parties' briefs, the trial
court submitted a letter pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b) amplifying its decision. The
court stated that because of an error in processing the motion, it had
inadvertently denied Archer Janny's motion without holding oral argument or
issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The parties acknowledge the trial court's error in deciding Archer Janny's
motion without hearing oral argument or issuing findings of fact and conclusions
A-0894-18T1
3
of law. They request this court to exercise its original jurisdiction to decide
Archer Janny's motion. See N.J. Const. art. VI, § 5, ¶ 3; R. 2:10-5.
II.
Except for pretrial discovery motions or motions directly addressed to a
calendar, oral argument "shall be granted as of right" if requested in a party's
moving papers. R. 1:6-2(d). Where a request for oral argument on a substantive
motion is properly made, denial of argument, absent articulation of specific
reasons on the record, constitutes reversible error. Raspantini v. Arocho, 364
N.J. Super. 528, 531-34 (App. Div. 2003).
In addition, Rule 1:7-4(a) provides a court shall "find the facts and state
its conclusions of law . . . on every motion decided by a written order that is
appealable as of right . . . ." "[A]n articulation of reasons is essential to the fair
resolution of a case." Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275, 282 (App. Div.
2000). Effective appellate review of a trial court's decision requires examination
of the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the trial court relied.
Raspantini, 364 N.J. Super. at 534.
We exercise original jurisdiction sparingly. State v. Micelli, 215 N.J. 284,
293 (2013). Generally, the exercise of original jurisdiction is disfavored when
fact-finding is necessary. Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 294-95 (2013).
A-0894-18T1
4
Findings of fact on each element of Rule 1:4-8 are necessary before awarding
attorney's fees and costs. See Alpert, Goldberg, Butler, Norton & Weiss, P.C.
v. Quinn, 410 N.J. Super. 510, 547 (App. Div. 2009). We therefore decline to
exercise original jurisdiction to decide Archer Janny's motion.
The September 14, 2018 order is vacated, and the matter is remanded for
oral argument and a determination of Archer Janny's motion for attorney's fees
and costs. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0894-18T1
5