![]() ![]() The judge explained that he took "this sort of on-going post-settlement litigation into account in determining the final fee award" and based the fee award on the original, but not the sup plemental, application for fees incurred after the initial fee application in the amount of $12,865.50. In addition, class counsel have been, and may well continue to be, involved in the admini stration of the settlement notice and imple mentation process, some of which will be future work for which they will not be able to make supplemental fee requests. There were also some post-settlement proceedings." He additionally observed,Ĭlass counsel worked hard for the set tlement, it was not handed to them. The judge found that the primary legal focus of the action was the CFA and that the action "was a relatively early case of this type" and had its own "unique set of facts and legal theo ries for recovery." He also found that "his case has been vigorously litigated, even though a settlement was eventually reached. A year later plaintiffs' counsel sought an award of fees and costs, which defendants opposed. The class settlement was approved on March 16, 2006, and the complaint was dismissed. The settlement did not resolve the issue of counsel fees. Thus, the total settlement exposed defendants to a payout of over $1.3 million. A settlement agreement was reached on May 9, 2005, providing relief to class members, primarily in the form of coupons and cash certificates worth $325 for each class member. Finally, he found that defendants' failure to print the required notice in ten-point typeface violated N.J.A.C. He also found that the failure to itemize that overcharge violated N.J.A.C. The judge found that defendants' overcharge of offi cial motor vehicle fees violated the Automobile Sales Practices Regulations, N.J.A.C. A class of about 41,657 members was certified on September 19, 2003, and partial summary judgment was granted to plaintiffs on February 3, 2005. Similar allega tions were made by the other named plaintiffs in the amended complaint.ĭefendants answered the complaint on June 26, 2002, and the parties then engaged in discovery and motion practice. Muller-Moreno alleged that she purchased a 2000 Mercury Sable from defendants and that they violated the CFA by overcharging her for title and registration fees and vio lated the TCCWNA by failing to itemize the overcharges and by failing to notify consumers of their rights. 13:45A-26B.2 and for equitable fraud, common-law fraud, failure to deal in good faith, and unjust enrichment. 56:12-14 to -18 and regulatory requirements for documentary and predelivery fees, N.J.A.C. ![]() 56:8-1 to -20 the Truth-in-Consumer Con tract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. The class-action complaint in this matter was filed on April 30, 2002, and sought damages from defendants, all automo bile dealers, for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. Plain tiffs' cross-appeal seeks interest on the fee award plus an award of appellate fees and costs. Plaintiffs assert the judge did not abuse his discretion in either respect and that defendants are seeking to mire their counsel fee application in a second round of liti gation, contrary to Furst, supra, 182 N.J. Defendants contend that the judge abused his discretion both when he set the lodestar and when he enhanced it. The judge set the lodestar at $626,114.33 and enhanced that sum by forty-five percent. This appeal requires us to decide whether the award of $907,865.79 in counsel fees in this class action was consistent with the standards established by Furst v. Skalet (Mehri & Skalet, PLLC) of the Wash ington D.C. Wolf argued the cause for respon dents (Galex Wolf, LLC attorneys Steven A. Ciarrocca argued the cause for appellants (Ciarrocca & Ciarrocca, attorneys Mr. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. and MALOUF BUICK, INC.,īefore Judges Cuff, Fisher and C.L. and MALOUF LEASING AND RENTAL CORPORATION MALOUF FORD, INC MALOUF LINCOLN MERCURY, INC. RICHARD MALOUF RICHARD MALOUF d/b/a MALOUF AUTO GROUP MALOUFĪUTO GROUP d/b/a MALOUF LINCOLN MERCURY INC., MALOUF FORD, INC., ALLEN and STEPHANIE FIGUEROA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |