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 Law, LLC, attorneys for appellants 

(David M. Koller, on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Shaquanna Robinson commenced this action against 

defendant J&C Auto Outlet, LLC, and its manager, defendant Jorge 

Caban. Plaintiff 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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." 

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.

June 9, 2017
2 A-1256-15T3

misrepresented the condition of a vehicle she purchased. She also 

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

situated – that an unexplained $199 documentary fee was improperly 

charged.

On February 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 resolve 

plaintiff's claim against Caban regarding the $199 fee or the 

claim against both defendants regarding the vehicle sale to 

plaintiff.

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 severally liable on plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation 

with regard to the vehicle's condition and awarded compensatory 

damages, which were trebled. The judge also imposed personal 

liability on Caban for the 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 vehicle and in support of his determination that the CFA was 

violated by both J&C and Caban with regard to the transaction. The 

judge found Caban's attempt to refute plaintiff's proofs regarding 

the vehicle's condition lacked credibility. These findings are

fully supported by the evidence and entitled to our deference.

Rova 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 

regarding 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 judgment 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 

arose 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, defense 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 testimony was he 

was . . . solely responsible for making all 

the decisions and supervising the employees, 

and . . . deciding how much to charge for 

anything.

The judge's reference to his findings on this point being 

"the exact same thing," invoked his earlier determination holding 

Caban personally liable for the damages resulting from the

misrepresentation of the vehicle's condition. In those earlier 

findings, the judge found 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 Caban "ran the company," it was "his 

company," and he was "the person who handled all day[-]to[-]day 

business activities." So viewed, we are satisfied the judge's 

findings that Caban solely managed and operated J&C are more than 
5 A-1256-15T3

sufficient to support the imposition 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 settings may often vary on the particulars 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 inclusion of an 

improper or unexplained fee. In short, those two wrongful events 

may arise separately and may often be produced by the conduct of 

different individuals each of whom should not be held personally 

responsible for the conduct of the other. There 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 condition to 

plaintiff and he was the manager who decided to include the 

unexplained $199 documentary fee.

Affirmed.