Opinion ID: 868479
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: njcfa

Text: The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act “provides a private cause of action to consumers who are victimized by fraudulent practices in the marketplace.” Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 25 A.3d 1103, 1114 (N.J. 2011). To constitute consumer fraud, “the business practice in question must be ‘misleading’ and stand outside the norm of reasonable business practice in that it will victimize the average consumer.” Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp., 655 A.2d 417, 430 (N.J. 1995). The elements of a NJCFA claim are: “(1) an unlawful practice, (2) an ascertainable loss, and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.” Gonzalez, 25 A.3d at 1115. The statute defines an “unlawful practice” as: any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression[,] or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived[,] or damaged thereby. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2. Gotthelf claims that the “unlawful practice” in which Toyota engaged was its knowing concealment of the defect in the HID headlamps. Gotthelf also claims that Toyota engaged in “an unconscionable commercial practice” by failing to disclose the defect in the HID headlamps to its customers once it became aware of the defect. Under each of these theories, however, Gotthelf is required to show that Toyota 17 “knowingly, with the intent of inducing reliance, conceal[ed], suppress[ed], or omitt[ed] a material fact.” Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util. Co., 59 A.3d 561, 571 (N.J. 2013). Gotthelf claims that Toyota knew of the HID headlamp defect “for years while Plaintiffs[’] warranties were in full force and effect.” (Appellants’ Br. 48-49.) Nothing in the Complaint provides factual support for Toyota’s alleged knowledge and concealment of the defect, either before Gotthelf leased his Prius, or during Gotthelf’s warranty period. To the contrary, the facts demonstrate that once Toyota became aware of the defect during the NHTSA investigation, it initiated a Customer Support program to notify customers of the problem with the HID headlamps. First, the Complaint alleges that Toyota should have been aware of the HID headlamp defect through its own “[b]ooks of [k]nowledge, internal testing, information on dealership repair orders, warranty data, [and] records of customer complaints.” (App. 86.) However, Gotthelf provides no factual support for this assertion — he does not state when the alleged complaints were received, or to whom at Toyota these alleged complaints were sent. Nor does he provide any facts relating to the alleged books of knowledge, internal testing, or dealership repair orders.16 Such conclusory allegations are 16 Gotthelf also claims that, as of September 2009, over 26,000 warranty claims had been submitted on the HID headlamps. However, it is not alleged in the Complaint when these warranty claims were filed, and at what point Toyota supposedly had knowledge of a widespread defect in the HID headlamps, such that it should have notified customers of the alleged defect. 18 insufficient to establish Toyota’s knowledge, and concealment, of the HID headlamp defect. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 Second, Gotthelf relies on the complaints submitted to the NHTSA to establish Toyota’s knowledge, and alleged concealment, of the defect. The Complaint includes several customer complaints filed with the NHTSA, the earliest of which dates to July 1, 2007. However, these complaints were filed with the NHTSA, not with Toyota, and the NHTSA did not notify Toyota of its investigation until May 6, 2009. Gotthelf has provided no facts to support his assertion that Toyota should have known about the defect based on these complaints. Based on the facts provided in the Complaint, May 6, 2009 is the earliest date that knowledge of the alleged defect can be attributed to Toyota. However, by this time, Gotthelf’s warranty period had ended. Third, the Customer Support letter in no way helps Gotthelf’s argument that Toyota had knowledge of, and concealed, the defect. The Customer Support letter was sent after the expiration of Gotthelf’s warranty period and informed customers of the problem with the HID headlamps. Gotthelf’s assertions that the letter was sent in bad faith, or as a “cover up,” lack factual support. Because Gotthelf cannot demonstrate that Toyota engaged in “an unlawful practice” through its alleged omission or concealment of the HID headlamp defect, his NJCFA claim fails.17 17 Gotthelf also spends a considerable amount of his brief arguing that the District Court erred by requiring that Toyota knew “with certainty” that the HID headlamps 19