SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 1256
- 15T3 SHAQUANNA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff
- Respondent ,

v. J & C AUTO OUTLET, LLC , and JORGE CABAN, Defendants
- Appellants.

_______________________________________________________

Submitted May 23, 2017

– Decided Before Judges Fisher and Vernoia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L - 1961
- 13.
Kollar La w, LLC, attorneys for appellants (David M. Koller, on the brief). Respondent has not file d a brief.
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Shaquanna Rob inson commenced this action against defendant J&C Auto Outlet, LLC, and its manager, defendant Jorge
Caban . P laintiff claimed , on her own behalf, that defendants NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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.

June 9, 20172 A - 1256
- 15T3

mis represented the condition of a vehicle she purchased . She also
asserted

– on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated

– that a n unexplained $199 documentary fee was improperly charged . On Fe b ruary 20, 2015, a judge granted partial summary judgment against J&C only , finding the imposition of the $199 fee violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) , N.J.S.A. 56:8
- 1 to
- 20 , the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Sales Practices Regulations, N.J.S.A.
13:45A
- 26B.3, and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12
- 15 . This order , however, did not r esolve plaintiff's claim against Caban rega rding the $199 fee or the claim against both defendants regarding the vehicle sale to pla intiff . The trial judge conducted a two
- day , non - jury trial in July 2015, rendered an oral opinion on September 24, 2015, and entered judgment on October 9, 2015. The judge found J&C and Caban jointly
and sev erally liable on plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation with regard to the vehicle's conditi on and awarded compensatory damages, which were tr ebled. T he judge also imposed personal liability on Caban for t he damages suffered by the class members .3 A - 1256
- 15T3

Defendants appeal, 1 arguing the judge 's findings do not support the imposition of individual liability on Caban for the class action damages. We find insufficient merit in defendants' arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E) , and add only the following brief comments. The judge made thorough findings regarding the condition of
the veh icle and in support of his determination that the CFA was violated by both J&C and Caban with regard to the tr ansaction. T he judge found Caban ' s attempt to refute plaintiff's proofs regarding
the vehicle's condition lacked credibility. The se findings are fully supported by the evidence and entitled to our deference . Ro va Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv' rs Ins. Co. of Am. , 65 N.J. 474,
483
- 84 (1974). Indeed, those rulings have not been challenged on appeal. The appeal instead focuses on the judge's imposition of personal liability on Caban for the regulatory violation regarding the $199 fee . Defendants ' claim that the judge's findings are inadequate

re garding Caban's liability for the regulatory violation are largely fueled by the judge's initial omission of this issue in

1 The notice of appeal was filed prior to finality being achieved in the trial court. The October 9, 2015 jud gment left unquantified the attorney's fees to which plaintiff was entitled. An order that presumably resolved all remaining issues was entered on January 22, 2016; plaintiff has not sought review of that order.4 A - 1256
- 15T3

his oral opinion. After the judge explained why he held Caban personally liable for the fraudulent sale of the vehicle, questions

aro se about the manner and method for quantifying , at a later date, plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees. After that, as the judge was concluding the proceeding , defe nse counsel inquired
about Caban 's personal liability on the class action claims:

MR. KOLLER : Are you deciding, or have you decided on the individual liability of the class claim? THE COURT: It would be the exact same thing, because Mr. Caban is the only person who operated this company. His testimo ny was he was . . . solely responsible for maki ng all the decisions and supervi sing the employees, and . . . deciding how much to charge for anything. The judge's reference to his findings on this point being
"t he exact same thing," invoked his earlier determination holding Caban personally li able for the damages resulting from the misrepresentation of the vehicle's condit ion . In those earli er findings, the judge foun d Caban to be "the manager" of J&C even though Caban 's fiancé "is the owner of" J&C. He determined, from Caban's own testimony, that Caba n "ran the company , " it was "his
company ," and he was " the person who handled all day[
- ]to[ - ]day business activi ties." So viewed, we are satisfied the judge's findings that Caban solely managed and operated J&C are more than5 A - 1256
- 15T3

sufficient to support the impos ition of personal liability on all aspects of the class and plaintiff's claims . We lastly observe that we agree with defendants in one respect worth noting : a determination of personal liability in this or other similar setting s may often vary on the particular s of the
consumer fraud asserted. That is , a salesman 's misrepresentation about a vehicle's condition might generate personal liability for damages resulting therefrom but might not generate personal liability regarding the billing department's i nclusion of an improper or unexplained fee. In short, those two wrongful events may arise separately and may often be produc ed by the conduct of different individuals each of whom should not be held personally responsible for the conduct of the other. T her e is no such distinction to be drawn here because, as the judge found , Caban made all the decisions and operated all facets of the company. He was the salesman who misrepresented the vehicle's conditio n to plaintiff and he was the manager who decided to in clude the

un explained $199 documentary fee. Affirmed.