SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 3278
- 14T1

JARROD KAUFMAN, RACHEL KAUFMAN, WILLIAM QUICK and NANCY QUICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
- Appellants,

v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC. and ROBERT M. LYNCH, Defendants
- Respon dents.

_________________________________

Argued September 21, 2016

– Decided Before Judges Fuentes, Simonelli and Carroll. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L - 5358
- 14.
Andrew R. Wolf argued the cause for appellants (The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Wolf, Matthew S. Oorbeek, Henry P. Wolf e , Andrew W. Li and Daniel I. Rubin, on the briefs). Brian E. O ' Donnell argued the cause for respondents (Riker Danzig Scherer Hy land & Perretti, LLP, attorneys; Mr. O ' Donnell, Michael P. O ' Mullan, Jeffrey M. Beyer and Casey A. Boyle, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not " constitute precedent or be binding upon any court .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 only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R .1:36
- 3.

August 22, 20172 A - 3278
- 14T1 Gavin J. Rooney argued the cause for amicus curiae The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute and Chamber of Commerce of th e United States of America (Lowenstein Sandler, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Rooney and Naomi D. Barrowclough, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Plaintiffs Jarrod and Rachel Kaufman and William and Nancy Quick are two sets of consumers who filed a putative class action

s uit against defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. and its Chief Executive O fficer , Robert M. Lynch. In their complaint, p laintiffs alleg ed they purchased " wood flooring and associated merchandise " from Lumber Liquidators " several times from August 29, 2012 t hrough October 20, 2012. " The sales invoices defendants provided did not contain language promising plaintiffs that " the merchandis e " they
ordered would be delivered by a specific date. (Emphasis added) . Plaintiffs claimed L umber Liquidators ' failure to include the precise " delivery date " language on its sales invoices violated
the Truth
- in
- Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA),
N.J.S.A. 56:12
- 14 to
- 18 ; the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A.
56:8
- 1 to
- 20; and the Delivery of Household Fur niture and Furnishings Regulations, N.J.A.C. 13:45A
- 5.1 to - 5.4 . Plaintiffs do not allege defects or deficiencies in the pro ducts they received. In fact, they suffered no actual damages. They seek only statutory civil penalties in the amount of $100 for each3 A - 3278
- 14T1

alleged violation of the TCCWNA and reasonable attorney ' s fees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:12
- 17 . T he Law Division granted defendants ' motion to dismiss
p laintiffs ' complaint as a matter of law for failure to state a claim u pon which relief can be grant ed . See R. 4:6
- 2(e). The dispositive issue is whether the hardwood flooring plaintiffs purchased from Lumber Liquidators constitutes " household furniture " under N.J.A.C. 13:45A
- 5.1 (d), which provides as follows : " For purposes of this rule, ' household furniture ' includes, but is not limited to, furniture, major electrical appliances, and such items as carpets and draperies. " Applying the well
- settled standards established by the Supreme Court in Printin g - Mart Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp. , 116 N .J. 739, 746 (1989) , Judge Andrea G. Carter concluded

" a plain reading " of N.J.A.C. 13:45A
- 5.1 (d) shows the term

" household furniture " does not include hardwood flooring . Judge
Carter found no reason to include non
- moveable improvements to real property, such as hardwood flooring or wall
- to - wall carpeting, in the regulatory definition of " household furniture . " Plaintiffs argue Judge Carter erred in adopting such a narrow reading of the regulation. Defendants urge us to uphold Judge
Carter ' s analysis and u ltimate conclusion. T he New Jersey Civil Justice Institute and the United States Chamber of Commerce filed4 A - 3278
- 14T1

a joint brief as amici curiae , urging us to use this case as an opportunity to adopt " a rigorous standard " for defining what constitutes a " clearly established legal right of a consumer " under the TCCWNA. See N.J.S.A. 56:12
- 15.
We agree with Judge Carter ' s analysis and affirm. The long
established canon of e jusdem generis provides that "' w here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words. '" Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City , 209 N.J. 558 , 584 (2012) (quoting Massachi v. City of Newa rk Police Dep ' t , 415 N.J. Super. 518, 543
– 44 (App. Div. 2010)) . The objects provided to illustrate the limits of the regulation ' s reach clearly exclude items such
as hardwood floors , which , as Judge Carter noted , constitute permanent improvements to p roperty. When " the plain language yields the meaning of the statute [or regulation], then our task is complete. " State v. Williams , 218 N.J. 576, 586 (2014) ( citing DiProspero v. Penn , 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005) ) . We thus affirm substantially for the reaso ns expressed by Judge Carter in her oral opinion delivered from the bench on February 20, 2015. In this light, we decline Amici Curiae ' s invitation to go beyond the four corners of plaintiffs ' pleading5 A - 3278
- 14T1

to resolve the straight forward dispositive legal ques tion presented here. Affirmed.