Business/Commercial Litigation

Client: Foulke Management Corp. d/b/a Cherry Hill Dodge

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Trial Attorney: Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

In this matter, plaintiffs purchased a used vehicle from defendant. They were listed as co-buyers on the Motor Vehicle Retail Order and Retail Installment Sales Contract. Plaintiffs also signed a Sold Vehicle Odometer Statement. Issues arose regarding the financing of the vehicle and plaintiffs executed a second set of documents with another lender. After plaintiffs failed to make several payments, defendant repossessed the car.

Plaintiffs then filed an arbitration demand. After a hearing, the arbitrator dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims finding they were without merit. Plaintiffs then moved in the New Jersey Superior Court for an order to show cause to vacate the arbitration award, which the court denied holding that when the Federal Arbitration Act applies, parties cannot agree to grounds to vacate an arbitration award different from what is provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

To view the case, please click here.

Client: Rothman Institute

Court: Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Trial Attorney:  Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

The Third Circuit in a precedential opinion affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Plaintiff’s Class Action under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) lawsuit because Plaintiff failed to plead that he entered into a “written agreement” to extend credit, which would implicate TILA.

Client:  Defendants in Consolidated Actions, Foulke Management Corp. and Mall Chevrolet, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brief Attorney:  Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Resolving novel legal issues created by the Appellate Division decision, and relying upon the public policy in favor of arbitration, the Supreme Court of New Jersey re-instated the orders of the Trial Courts enforcing the Arbitration Agreements.

The Plaintiffs had executed documents to purchase motor vehicles from Defendants which contained ”clear and conspicuous” agreements to arbitrate all disputes, including whether a particular dispute is “arbitrable”. In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs had sought for the Courts (and not the arbitrators) to resolve their challenge to the enforceability of an Arbitration Agreement and the Defendants had urged the Courts to enforce the broad agreements to arbitrate as written.