The New Jersey Supreme Court has granted the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute (NJCJI) leave to appear in several significant cases impacting the state's civil justice system. These cases involve critical issues such as arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and liability for property owners.
In **Achey v. Cellco Partnership**, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by failing to disclose a $1.95 per month administrative charge in a cellular service agreement. The trial court compelled arbitration based on an arbitration clause within the agreement, which included a "bellwether" provision designed to prevent mass arbitration abuses. The Appellate Division found several terms of the agreement unconscionable and reversed the trial court's order. NJCJI and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States were granted permission to appear as amici curiae in this matter.
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq., representing NJCJI and the U.S. Chamber, stated: "Enforceability of bellwether provisions is vital to preventing abusive mass arbitration strategies."
In **Padilla v. Young Il An**, NJCJI was allowed to participate as amicus curiae regarding liability for owners of vacant lots concerning injuries on public sidewalks. The Appellate Division upheld summary judgment in favor of defendants, ruling that owners of vacant properties are not required to maintain adjacent public sidewalks since they derive no substantial benefit from them.
Alex Daniel, Esq., NJCJI’s in-house counsel representing NJCJI, noted: "Expanding landowners’ duties would result in substantial expansion of liability for businesses and property owners throughout the State."
In **Pace v. Hamilton Cove**, NJCJI supported defendants' appeal after the Appellate Division ruled that stand-alone contractual class action waivers are unenforceable under New Jersey law if not accompanied by an arbitration provision. This decision could significantly impact businesses' right to contract.
Jeff Jacobson, Esq., representing NJCJI, commented: "The bright line rule prohibiting enforcement of free-standing class action waivers constitutes a significant curtailment of businesses’ right to contract."
**County of Passaic v. Horizon Healthcare Services Inc** involves an arbitration agreement between two sophisticated parties without an explicit waiver for court access rights—a requirement established by Atalese v. U.S Legal Services Group L.P.. The Appellate Division affirmed that such agreements remain enforceable among equally positioned commercial entities.
Alex Daniel emphasized: "Expanding Atalese to encompass sophisticated commercial parties would be inequitable and strip negotiated benefits."
Lastly, in **Robey v SPARC Group LLC**, plaintiffs accused a clothing retailer of deceptive advertising practices by marking up prices only to mark them down falsely suggesting discounts—violating consumer protection laws under CFA.
The Appellate Division sided with plaintiffs stating that advertised discounts were illusory despite receiving what was paid at agreed-upon prices potentially expanding liabilities in consumer class actions.
