1997 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-18-1997

Suber v. Chrysler Corporation

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-5735

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1997 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Suber v. Chrysler Corporation" (1997). 1997 Decisions. Paper 41.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1997/41
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

95-5735 

 

 JAMES SUBER, 

 Appellant

v. 

 CHRYSLER CORPORATION 

v. 

 KONTINENTAL KOACHES,INC., a/k/a and d/b/a 

 KONTINENTAL KONVERSIONS, 

 Third-party defendant 

 CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

 Third-party plaintiff 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 For the District of New Jersey 

 D.C. Civ. No. 94-cv-00467 

 

 Argued: July 25, 1996 

 Before: BECKER, STAPLETON, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges*

 (Opinion Filed: January 16, 1997) 

 (Order Filed: February 18, 1997) 

 

ROBERT M. SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) 

 

 

* The Honorable Paul R. Michel, United States Circuit Judge 

for the Federal Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation. 
Cynthia M. Certo, Esquire 

Kimmel & Silverman 

630 Sentry Park 

Suite 310 

Blue Bell, PA 19422 

 

Counsel for Appellant

KEVIN M. MCKEON, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) 

Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, 

 Coleman & Goggin 

Three Greentree Center 

Suite 304 

Marlton, NJ 08053-3405 

Counsel for Appellee

 

 ORDER AMENDING OPINION 

 

BECKER, Circuit Judge. 

 The opinion in the above-captioned case is hereby amended as 

follows: 

 1. Insert a footnote on page 10, at the end of the second 

full paragraph ending with: 

See N.J.S.A. 56:12-42 (“In any action by a consumer against 

a manufacturer brought in Superior Court or in the 

division pursuant to the provisions of this act, a 

prevailing consumer shall be awarded reasonable 

attorney’s fees, fees for expert witnesses and 

costs.”). 

that reads: 

 N.J.S.A. 56:12-42 on its face authorizes attorneys’ 

fees and costs only in actions brought in the New 

Jersey Superior Court or in the Division of Consumer 

Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and 

thus does not explicitly provide for payment of 

attorneys’ fees and costs in an action brought in 

federal court. But Chrysler has not contended that 

attorneys’ fees would not be available in this action, 

and we have not located any cases that so hold. The 

district court must also consider this question on 

remand. 
 2. Insert a footnote on page 10 of the slip opinion, third 

full paragraph, after sentence stating: 

“Because we have concluded that it is conceivable that 

Suber’s van is a ‘total lemon,’ we agree that Suber is 

entitled to include the entire sticker price of the van 

in the amount in controversy.” 

that reads: 

 Under N.J.S.A. 56:12-32, the plaintiff must return the 

vehicle to the manufacturer in order to receive payment 

of any damages awarded. The parties have not briefed 

the question whether the amount in controversy should, 

accordingly, be reduced to account for the value of the 

vehicle when it is returned, nor have they presented 

any record evidence regarding the value of Suber’s van, 

and so we leave this question to the district court 

upon remand. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker

 Edward R. Becker 

 Circuit Judge