Articles Posted in Consumer Lawyer

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

What do you do when you make demand for arbitration and the business fails to comply?

It is not uncommon that if you have purchased a consumer good, it is likely that you have signed an arbitration agreement contained in the small print. The fact that the agreement is contained in small print or in the back of the document most likely will not result in a change in result that you cannot go to court but have to handle the matter through the arbitration process. These two major arbitration resources are the American Arbitration Association and JAMS. Well, what do you do when the business fails to respond or they are in violation of either American Arbitration Association or JAMS due to process protocols?

In spite of its broad scope generally, discovery “is not unbridled and unlimited.” Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 282 (App. Div. 1983). Given the broad scope of defendants’ document demands upon these non-parties, the burden upon the non-parties in complying with defendants’ discovery demands, and the costs of enforcement of the subpoena, clearly outweigh any commensurate benefit, if any, to the plaintiff in this case.

1. Defendants’ Subpoenas Are Unreasonable And Oppressive Because They Seek Documents Equally Attainable From the Defendants.

The subpoenas served by defendants are unreasonable and oppressive because they request that a non-party produce documents more easily attainable from defendants, parties to the litigation, if any such information were relevant and not confidential. It is well-settled that a subpoena should not be used as a substitute for discovery more appropriately obtained through depositions and interrogatories. See Wassertein v. Swean & Co., 84 N.S. Super. 1, 6-8 (App. Div.) certif. denied, 43 N.J. 125 (1964). Furthermore, where the information subpoenaed is more readily attainable through discovery directed at a party, a shifting of the demand of production to a non-party is unreasonable and oppressive. See Harvey v. Nissan North America, Inc., 2005 WL 10501 (N.J. Super. Ch.) (granting Motion to Quash in part as “shifting of the burden to a non-party is impermissible and any duplicative requests need not be honored”). Moreover, defendants have offered no adequate cause to warrant shifting the burden of discovery to these non-parties to this matter. As such, defendants’ subpoenas should be quashed as unreasonable and oppressive.

New Jersey Law and Subpoenas

Defendants’ subpoena directed at non-parties should be quashed in their entirety, as the documents sought contain nothing but confidential personal information and are not relevant to this litigation. New Jersey Courts have consistently recognized that although the scope of discovery is broad, it is not infinite. K.S. v. ABC Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div. 2000). Accordingly, a court may exercise its power to restrict depositions, especially those of third parties who are not involved in a litigation. In pertinent part, R. 4:10-3 of the New Jersey Rules of Civil Procedure provides that this Court may quash, or decline to enforce a subpoena.and/or issue a protective Order, if the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matters, subjects a person to undue burden or requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential information.

Similarly, R. 1:9-2 states that in regard to a subpoena for the production of documents, “the court on motion … may quash or modify the subpoena … if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” As discussed in detail below, this Court should quash plaintiffs’ subpoenas because they: (1) seek documents and information that are not relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims or defenses in this matter; (2) are unduly burdensome and oppressive; and (3) seek documents and information that are confidential and privileged.

There is a bill heading its way through the legislature: A3333

I will address many aspects of this bill, but it should be named properly since it is 100% anti-consumer and reduces if not completely eliminates the the Consumer Fraud Act. That’s right, it repeals the CONSUMER FRAUD ACT as a practical matter. Watch out, consumers, it’s open season on your pocketbooks if this bill passes.

I am calling this bill:

Consumer Law Resources. Here are some resources for consumer lawyers.

These were part of a web page

There were a lot of patent links as well on this page

We won the appeal. The Appellate division determined that the the trial level made a mistake by dismissing the complaint on the summary judgment motion filed by the dealership and their lawyers.

A jury believing plaintiff’s description of the events could find that agents of Triplex sold a new car to plaintiff indirectly, through his parents who were acting as his agents, by falsely advertising the value of a trade-in and falsely promising to recast the loan if he paid the loan for eight months. The jurors could also find that as a consequence of Triplex’s false pretense and promise, plaintiff sustained an ascertainable loss equivalent to the difference between the $8000 credit advertised by Triplex and the value Triplex gave for the 1999 Ford. On these facts Triplex is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law simply because plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement and was not legally obligated to pay the amount due. SeeBrill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (discussing the showing required for a grant of summary judgment).

Any successful appeal is a very impressive task since I have heard that only one in ten appeals are successful!! Nonetheless the court did the right thing in permitting the plaintiff to pursue his claim against the dealership. We are awaiting a trial date for this matter in Camden County Superior Court.

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