The plaintiff’s case was dismissed on motion in Superior Court and is now on appeal. The Appellate Division information is as follows. This is public information.
Taylor v. Cherry Hill Triplex, et al.
Trial Court Docket No. CAM-L-1502-08 Appellate Docket No. A-6307-08T2
The Superior Court dismissed the case because the plaintiff was unable to show an ascertainable loss and as such there was no violation of the Consumer Fraud Act shown.
This posting is not intended to demonstrate or imply the dealership did anything wrong or illegal, especially since the case was thrown out. The purpose is to post the majority of the brief that was submitted to the appellate division for the plaintiff requesting that the Appellate division overturn the lower court’s decision.
To the Honorable Judges of the Appellate Division:
Procedural History Plaintiff, Rodney Taylor, filed a complaint on March 17, 2008 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, County of Camden against defendant/respondent, Cherry Hill Triplex. (Pa 18 – 24) Plaintiff’s complaint included causes of action for a violation of the Truth in Lending Act and a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Defendant/respondent, Cherry Hill Triplex, filed an answer to the complaint on May 20, 2008. (Pa25-30) By order of the Superior Court on or about September 17, 2008, partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant/respondent dismissing plaintiff’s Truth in Lending Act claim. (Pa31-32)
On June 26, 2009, the Trial Court issued an order granting summary judgment to defendants for plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim which in effect dismissed plaintiff’s entire complaint with prejudice. (Pa1 – Pa2)
The Court entered this order on June 26, 2009 after hearing oral argument and stated its reason for the issuing of summary judgment on the record. (Pa8-Pa15)
On August 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court, appealing the Trial Court’s summary judgment order of June 26, 2009. (Pa 3-Pa7)