SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0188-20

KENNETH VERCAMMEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LINKEDIN CORPORATION,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________

January 18, 2022 – Decided January 26, 2022

Before Judges Fasciale and Firko. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. C-000103-20.

Kenneth Vercammen, appellant, argued the cause pro 

se.

Bruce W. Clark argued the cause for respondent (Clark 

Michie LLP, attorneys; Bruce W. Clark and 

Christopher Michie, on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-0188-20

Plaintiff appeals from an August 18, 2020 order denying relief requested 

by order to show cause (OTSC) and dismissing his complaint with prejudice. 

Plaintiff argues, primarily, that the judge denied him due process by not giving 

him sufficient time to respond to defendant LinkedIn's motion to dismiss. We 

disagree with that argument, affirm the order under review, but remand and 

direct that the order be converted from with prejudice to without prejudice. 

Consequently, plaintiff may then pursue a cause of action in accordance with 

the forum selection clause. 

Plaintiff is a New Jersey attorney. LinkedIn is a social networking website 

for professionals headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. In June 2019, plaintiff 

entered into a contract via a User Agreement with LinkedIn for one year of 

premium use of LinkedIn's service. The User Agreement contains a hyperlink 

to LinkedIn's terms of service, which includes a forum selection clause

mandating that any dispute concerning the contract or services must be resolved

in California. 

In December 2019, LinkedIn suspended plaintiff's account after 

determining that plaintiff allegedly violated multiple provisions of its User 
3

A-0188-20

Agreement and Publishing Platform Guidelines.

1

 LinkedIn terminated 

plaintiff's account in January 2020 after warning him of multiple violations of 

the company's policies. LinkedIn later refunded plaintiff the balance of his 

subscription fee.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint and OTSC seeking reactivation of 

his LinkedIn premium account, contact information for an individual LinkedIn 

employee he could contact about his account, and free LinkedIn premium 

service for five years, in addition to compensatory, treble, and punitive damages. 

Plaintiff also brought claims for breach of warranty, negligence, common law 

fraud, and consumer fraud under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A 56:8-

1 to -20. 

In lieu of filing an answer, LinkedIn filed a motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim, arguing that the forum selection clause mandates that the dispute 

be litigated in California and that plaintiff otherwise failed to state a claim for 

fraud, consumer fraud, and injunctive relief. LinkedIn supported the motion 

with the certification of Tsitsi Harmston, LinkedIn's Senior Legal Policy 

1

 LinkedIn alleges plaintiff was posting more than fifteen articles per day on the 

networking site, which exceeded the permitted daily number of articles members 

were permitted to post. LinkedIn staff determined plaintiff was using the articles 

to advertise his business, which violated LinkedIn's Publishing Platform 

Guidelines. 
4

A-0188-20

Enforcement Manager, and copies of the relevant provisions of the User 

Agreement. The judge conducted oral argument, entered an order denying 

injunctive relief, and dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, citing the 

forum selection clause. 

On appeal, plaintiff raises the following points for this court's 

consideration: 

POINT I

A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROPER 

VERIFICATION AND FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM THAT USES MATTERS OUTSIDE THE 

PLEADINGS SHOULD BE TREATED AS A 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND BE 

AFFORDED PROPER DUE PROCESS TO 

RESPOND. 

POINT II 

THE TRIAL [JUDGE] SHOULD NOT HAVE ENDED 

THE CLAIM ON THE MERITS WITH PREJUDICE 

WITHOUT A WRITTEN OR ORAL OPINION. 

POINT III 

[PLAINTIFF'S] ABILITY TO CONSENT TO AN 

ARBITRATION CLAUSE SHOULD BE FULLY 

LITIGATED IN THE TRIAL COURT.

POINT IV 

THERE EXISTS A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT OF 

WHETHER [DEFENDANT] VIOLATED THE [CFA]. 
5

A-0188-20

Plaintiff also raises the following points in reply, which we have renumbered: 

[POINT V]

. . . PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY 

VERIFIED AND SERVED.

[POINT VI]

THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL 

FACT AS TO WHETHER [DEFENDANT] 

ENGAGED IN UNCON[S]CIONABLE AND 

DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES BY 

OFFERING HORRENDOUS CUSTOMER 

SUPPORT.

[POINT VII]

[PLAINTIFF'S] ABILITY TO CONSENT TO A 

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE SHOULD BE

FULLY LITIGATED IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

[POINT VIII]

THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE WAS 

SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME TO ANSWER THE 

ABOVE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ON AN [OTSC]

SCHEDULE.

We disagree and affirm. 

I.

We first reject plaintiff's contention that the judge erred by not treating 

LinkedIn's motion to dismiss as a summary judgment motion. If a party presents 
6

A-0188-20

matters outside the pleadings to support a motion to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim, the judge may exclude that material. See R. 4:6-2. If the judge does 

not exclude the material, "the motion shall be treated as one for summary 

judgment and disposed of as provided by R[ule] 4:46." Ibid. 

Judges may consider documents specifically referenced in the complaint 

"without converting the motion into one for summary judgment." Myska v. N.J. 

Mfrs. Ins. Co., 440 N.J. Super. 458, 482 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting E. Dickerson 

& Son, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 361 N.J. Super. 362, 365 n.1 (App. Div. 

2003)). "In evaluating motions to dismiss, [judges] consider 'allegations in the 

complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and 

documents that form the basis of a claim.'" Ibid. (quoting Banco Popular N. 

Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 183 (2005)). "It is the existence of the fundament 

of a cause of action in those documents that is pivotal; the ability of the plaintiff 

to prove [the] allegations is not at issue." Ibid. (quoting Banco Popular, 184 

N.J. at 183). 

Here, in addition to examining the complaint, the judge considered the 

User Agreement and Harmston's certification, which detailed the various 

breaches of the User Agreement. Plaintiff's complaint references a contract 

between plaintiff and LinkedIn. That contract includes LinkedIn's User 
7

A-0188-20

Agreement and Terms of Service. We, therefore, conclude there was no error 

by considering these documents as part of the motion to dismiss.

We disagree with plaintiff's assertion that the judge denied him due 

process and a meaningful opportunity to respond. The schedule governing the 

timing of motions and responses set by Rule 1:6-3 applies "unless otherwise 

provided by court order." R. 1:6-3(a). At plaintiff's request, the matter 

proceeded by OTSC with an accelerated briefing schedule. The record, and 

plaintiff's own actions, belie his contention that the judge did not afford him 

adequate time. Plaintiff did not ask for an extension of time and filed a reply 

brief in response to LinkedIn's motion to dismiss, which failed to address the 

jurisdictional issue or any of LinkedIn's arguments in opposition. We, therefore,

see no error in the judge's briefing schedule or the opportunity to respond.

II.

We review the dismissal of a complaint on legal grounds, including based 

on a forum selection clause, de novo. Hoffman v. Supplements Togo Mgmt., 

LLC, 419 N.J. Super. 596, 605 (App. Div. 2011). 

Plaintiff asserts he lacked reasonable notice of the terms of the User 

Agreement, including the provision containing the forum selection clause. He

did not dispute the binding effect of the forum selection clause before the judge, 
8

A-0188-20

despite it being the focus of LinkedIn's motion to dismiss, and does not address 

its validity or enforceability on appeal. LinkedIn contends plaintiff validly 

assented to the "sign-in-wrap" agreement, which contained a sufficiently 

noticeable hyperlink containing the User Agreement and Terms of Service. 

LinkedIn further maintains that the forum selection clause is valid and 

enforceable because it is not unduly oppressive and does not violate public 

policy, as required under New Jersey law. 

"A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case if it is brought in an 

ineligible forum." Id. at 606. The question of whether a forum selection clause 

is binding upon a purchaser of a service "turns upon fundamental precepts of 

contract law." Ibid. Thus, like any other contract, an online service contract 

requires mutual assent or "a meeting of the minds." Ibid.

Forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable in New 

Jersey. Caspi v. Microsoft Network, L.L.C., 323 N.J. Super. 118, 122 (App. 

Div. 1999). "The courts of our State have generally enforced such forum 

selection clauses, where: (1) they are not the product of fraud or undue

bargaining power, (2) they would not violate public policy, and (3) their 

enforcement would not seriously inconvenience the parties at trial." Hoffman, 

419 N.J. Super. at 606. "In applying these standards of enforceability, a critical
9

A-0188-20

consideration is whether or not the plaintiff was provided with fair notice of the 

forum selection clause." Id. at 607. "If a forum selection clause is clear in its 

purport and has been presented to the party to be bound in a fair and forthright 

fashion, no consumer fraud policies or principles have been violated." Ibid.

(emphasis omitted) (quoting Caspi, 323 N.J. Super. at 124). It cannot be 

"proffered unfairly, or with a design to conceal or de-emphasize its provisions." 

Id. at 611 (quoting Caspi, 323 N.J. Super. at 126). The issue of reasonable notice 

regarding a forum selection clause is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. 

Ibid.

The agreement at issue is commonly referred to as a "sign-in-wrap." Signin-wraps are agreements that "notify the user of the existence of a website's 

terms of use and, instead of providing an 'I agree' button, advise the user that he 

or she is agreeing to the terms of service when registering or signing up." Meyer 

v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 75-76 (2d. Cir. 2017); see also Wollen v. Gulf 

Stream Restoration & Cleaning, LLC, 468 N.J. Super. 483, 495-96 (App. Div. 

2021) Courts give effect to sign-in-wrap agreements, if, under a fact-sensitive 

inquiry, if the user was provided with notice of the applicable terms. Wollen, 

468 N.J. Super. 495-96. In Caspi, this court found enforceable a forum selection 

clause, which was contained in a membership agreement that "appear[ed] on the 
10 A-0188-20

[subscriber's] computer screen in a scrollable window next to blocks providing 

the choices 'I Agree' and 'I Don't Agree.'" 323 N.J. Super. at 122, 125-26. 

Conversely, in Hoffman, this court found a forum selection clause unenforceable 

where the seller's website was unfairly structured so that the clause would not 

appear on a purchaser's computer screen unless they "scrolled down to display 

the 'submerged' clause before adding the product to" their cart. 419 N.J. Super. 

at 598. 

When completing his premium subscription order, plaintiff was required 

to click a button, stating, "Start your free trial." Above the button was the 

following statement: 

By placing this order you agree to our terms of service. 

To ensure continued service, we'll store and update 

(e.g., upon expiration) your payment method. Learn 

about how to cancel and our refund policy. 

The reference to the "terms of service" is a hyperlink, located directly 

above the button used to purchase the service, and by clicking on the reference, 

the user is taken directly to LinkedIn's User Agreement. The terms of service 

contains the following clause: 

6. Governing Law and Dispute Resolution 

. . . .
11 A-0188-20

. . . . You and LinkedIn agree that the laws of the State 

of California, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of laws 

rules, shall exclusively govern any dispute relating to 

this Contract and/or the Services. You and LinkedIn 

both agree that all claims and disputes can be litigated 

only in the federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, 

California, [U.S.A.], and you and LinkedIn each agree 

to personal jurisdiction in those courts. 

Here, the clause was not submerged nor hidden. And, like in Caspi, the 

clause was "clear in its purport and has been presented to the party to be bound 

in a fair and forthright fashion." 323 N.J. Super. at 124. Therefore, plaintiff 

cannot assert that he had no notice of the terms.

As to the validity of the clause itself, plaintiff never alleged that LinkedIn 

acted improperly by including a forum selection clause. Plaintiff failed to meet 

his burden of showing that the forum selection clause was oppressive, violated 

public policy, or was unduly inconvenient to the parties. Plaintiff has not shown 

that he was the subject of overwhelming bargaining power in dealing with 

LinkedIn. See Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593-94 (1991)

(holding that a corporate vendor's inclusion of a forum selection clause in a 

consumer contract does not itself constitute overwhelming bargaining power). 

Furthermore, plaintiff retained the option of rejecting the contract and 

LinkedIn's services. And, moreover, applying the forum selection clause does 

not contravene public policy. See Wilfred MacDonald, Inc. v. Cushman, Inc., 
12 A-0188-20

256 N.J. Super. 58, 63-65 (App. Div. 1992) (noting that the enforcement of a 

forum selection clause is not contrary to public policy). The judge, therefore,

did not err in dismissing plaintiff's complaint where the judge did not directly 

adjudicate plaintiff's ability to consent to the forum selection clause. 

III.

The forum selection clause precludes plaintiff's fraud claims; however, we

also reject plaintiff's contention that the judge erred in dismissing his complaint 

where there were material fact issues as to whether LinkedIn's customer service 

constituted common law fraud or fraud under the CFA on the merits. 

We review a judge's decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim de 

novo. MasTec Renewables Constr. Co., Inc. v. SunLight Gen. Mercer Solar, 

LLC, 462 N.J. Super. 297, 309 (App. Div. 2020). Under Rule 4:6-2(e), a trial 

judge must "search the complaint 'in depth and with liberality to ascertain 

whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure 

statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if necessary.'" Banco

Popular, 184 N.J. at 165 (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs.

Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)). The review must be performed in a manner 

that is "generous and hospitable." Printing Mart-Morristown, 116 N.J. at 746. 

Our review requires us to simply determine whether a cause of action is 
13 A-0188-20

"suggested" by the complaint. Ibid. (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive 

Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988)). "[I]f the complaint states no basis for relief and 

discovery would not provide one, dismissal is the appropriate remedy." Banco

Popular, 184 N.J. at 166.

To establish a common law fraud claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that 

a "defendant: (1) made a representation or omission of a material fact; (2) with 

knowledge of its falsity; (3) intending that the representation or omission be 

relied upon; (4) which resulted in reasonable reliance; and that (5) [the] plaintiff 

suffered damages." DepoLink Court Reporting & Litig. Support Servs. v. 

Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 336 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Jewish Ctr. of 

Sussex Cnty. v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619, 624 (1981)). The fraud pleading must allege 

"particulars of the wrong, with dates and items if necessary, . . . insofar as 

practicable." R. 4:5-8(a). Plaintiff's complaint asserts that "defendant 

knowingly concealed material facts with the intent that [he] rely on such 

concealment" and that "[he] relied upon the concealment and omission of these 

facts, to his detriment." He does not specify what LinkedIn concealed or 

omitted. Plaintiff's general allegation is insufficient to state a claim for common 

law fraud. 
14 A-0188-20

To state a private claim under the CFA, a consumer must allege "unlawful 

conduct; an ascertainable loss; and a causal relationship between the unlawful 

conduct and the ascertainable loss." Heyert v. Taddese, 431 N.J. Super. 388, 

412 (App. Div. 2013); N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. "Because a claim under the CFA is 

essentially a fraud claim, [Rule 4:5-8(a)] requires that such claims be pled with 

specificity to the extent practicable." Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 

N.J. Super. 105, 112 (App. Div. 2009). Plaintiff's complaint is bereft of any 

particulars that adequately allege fraud under the CFA. 

IV.

Finally, we conclude that the judge properly denied injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is also barred by the forum selection 

clause, nonetheless, we address his claim on the merits. 

We review a trial judge's decision to grant or deny a preliminary 

injunction for an abuse of discretion. Rinaldo v. RLR Inv., LLC, 387 N.J. Super. 

387, 395 (App. Div. 2006). A judge abuses his or her discretion "when a 

decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from 

established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" Flagg v. Essex Cnty. 

Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002) (quoting Achacoso-Sanchez v. INS, 779 

F.2d 1260, 1265 (7th Cir. 1985)). 
15 A-0188-20

When determining whether a party is entitled to preliminary injunctive 

relief, we must consider the four factors outlined in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J.

126 (1982). See Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013) 

(reiterating the factors outlined in Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132-34). First, "a 

preliminary injunction should not issue except when necessary to prevent 

irreparable harm." Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132. "Harm is generally considered 

irreparable in equity if it cannot be redressed adequately by monetary damages." 

Id. at 132-33. Second, "temporary relief should be withheld when the legal right 

underlying [the] plaintiff's claim is unsettled." Id. at 133. Third, a "preliminary 

injunction should not issue where all material facts are controverted." Ibid. 

Under the third factor, "to prevail on an application for temporary relief, a 

plaintiff must make a preliminary showing of a reasonable probability of 

ultimate success on the merits." Ibid. Fourth, and finally, a judge must consider 

the "relative hardship to the parties in granting or denying relief." Id. at 134.

We acknowledge that the judge did not provide a statement of reasons for 

his denial in compliance with Rule 1:7-4(a). Notwithstanding this error, we find 

that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying relief because, under

Crowe, plaintiff failed to allege irreparable harm and failed to show that an 

adequate remedy at law does not exist. This is especially apparent where 
16 A-0188-20

plaintiff sought compensatory, treble, and punitive damages. Plaintiff offered 

no explanation for why this remedy, outside of his requested equitable relief, 

was valid. 

Plaintiff also argues that an OTSC "should not be a final adjudication on 

the matter." To support this proposition, plaintiff cites Solondz v. Kornmehl, 

317 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 1998), contending that if the judge found that 

dismissal should be granted "he should have denied the emergent relief while 

allowing the controversy to proceed to be fully litigated in accordance with 

principles of due process." In Solondz, the trial judge entered judgment 

enforcing a contract against plaintiff because there was no material fact in 

dispute. Id. at 22. Here, the judge properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint 

because there was no dispute as to the legal effect of the forum selection clause.

Plaintiff contends that if the judge found that dismissal was proper, "he 

should have denied the emergent relief while allowing the controversy to 

proceed to be fully litigated in accordance with principles of due process." 

LinkedIn does not contest that the dismissal should not have been with 

prejudice. We, therefore, remand and direct the judge to modify the order to 

make clear that the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is without prejudice, 
17 A-0188-20

thereby allowing him to file an action in the appropriate judicial forum in 

California.

Affirmed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.