MATIJAKOVICH v. P.C. RICHARD & SON et al

Filing 11

OPINION. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 6/21/16. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAVID MATIJAKOVICH,
Plaintiff,

OPINION

V.

Civ. No. 2:16-1506 (WHW) (CLW)
P.C. RICHARD & SON,
Defendant.

Walls, Senior District Judge

Defendant moves to dismiss this putative class action brought under New Jersey’s Truthin-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. Plaintiff’s claim is based on an alleged
omission of required contractual language, and a claim under the TCCWNA requires the
inclusion of an improper provision. Decided without oral argument under Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 78,
Defendant’s motion is granted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff David Matijakovich brought an action against Defendant
P.C. Richard & Son in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Compi., ECF No. 1-1. Defendant
removed the action to this Court on March 17, 2016, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C.

§

1332(d)(2). Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Matijakovich is a citizen of New

Jersey, and P.C. Richard & Son is a New York limited liability company with its principal place
of business in New York. Id.

¶J 10-13.

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a new Maytag washing machine from Defendant for
use in his home. Compl.

¶J 14-22. He entered into a contract with P.C. Richard & Son and paid

$575 for the appliance. Id.

¶J 23, 38. Defendant then delivered the appliance to Plaintiff’s

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
property and installed it. Id.

CLOSE

¶ 24. Plaintiff asserts that the contract omitted a provision that is

mandatory under New Jersey law. Specifically, language disclosing a seller’s obligations in case
of the delayed delivery of furniture, as required by the New Jersey Household Furniture and
Furnishings Regulations (“HFR”), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5.1, et seq., was not present in the parties’
contract. Id.

¶J 49-55. Plaintiff does not assert that the delivery of the machine was delayed but

alleges that this omission violated New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and
Notice Act (“TCCWNA”). Id.

¶J 59-76.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New Jersey citizens who “both purchased
‘household furniture’ as defined by the HFR.. from P.C. Richard & Son’s retail store located
.

[in] Paramus,” New Jersey and received contracts with the same language as Matijakovich’s
within six years of the filing of the complaint. Id.

¶ 82. Plaintiff brings two counts: one count

alleging a violation of the TCCWNA and seeking a statutory penalty of $100 for each violation
in addition to “cancellation remedies, injunctive relief.
suit,” Compi.

.

.

attorney’s fees, interest, [and] costs of

¶J 108-112, and one count seeking a declaratory judgment “declaring as illegal the

dealer’s TCCWNA violations that are the subject of count 1,” Id.

¶J 113-123.

Defendant asserts that the Paramus store sold more than 50,000 appliances and furniture
items between February 16, 2010 and February 16, 2016. Decl. of Thomas Pohmer ¶ 4. Because
Plaintiff seeks $100 for each violation in addition to other remedies, the amount in controversy
exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold under the Class Action Fairness Act and 28
U.S.C.

§

1332(d)(2).
STANDARD OF REVIEW

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSE

U.s. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “A
pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement.” Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted).
DISCUSSION
The “purpose of the TCCWNA, N.J.S.A. 56:12-15, is to prevent deceptive practices in
consumer contracts by prohibiting the use of illegal terms or warranties in consumer contracts.”
Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds and Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428, 457 (N.J. 2011). The act
states in relevant part that “[n]o seller.

.

.

shall in the course of his business

.

.

.

enter into any

written consumer contract” that “includes any provision that violates any clearly established
legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller” as established by state or federal law.
N.J.S.A. 56:12-15. To state a claim under the TCCWNA, a plaintiff must allege four elements:
“(1) the plaintiff is a consumer; (2) the defendant is a seller; (3) the ‘seller offers a consumer a
contract’

.

.

.

and (4) the contract.

.

.

includes a provision that ‘violate[s] any legal right of a

consumer’ or responsibility of a seller.” Watkins v. DineEquity, Inc., 591 F. App’x 132, 135 (3d
Cir. 2014) (citing Boslandv. WarnockDodge, Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 267, 278-79 (N.J. App. Div.
2007).
Defendant argues that a TCCWNA claim cannot be based on an omission, because an
offending contract must “include” an improper provision. Br. Mot. to Dismiss at 6. Plaintiff
disputes this and also argues in his opposition brief that the contract contained impermissible
language about returning the product in addition to omitting required language about delivery

3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
delays. Br.

CLOSE

Opp., ECF No. 9 at 6. The allegation that the contract contained an offending

provision does not appear in the complaint, which specifically asserts only that the contract
failed to include mandatory language. See Compl.

¶J 49-58. Although the complaint generally

asserts that “the contract conflicts and/or contradicts and/or misstates and/or fails to include the
mandatory disclosures required the [sic] HFR,” a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Phillips
v. County ofAllegheny, 515 f.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008); see also fed. R. Civ. Pr. 8 (“A
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain.

.

.

a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). Because it “is axiomatic that the complaint may
not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss,” Corn. ofPa. ex ret.
Zimrnerrnan v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988), the Court does not consider
Plaintiffs new assertion that the contract included improper language and only evaluates
Plaintiffs claim based on Defendant’s alleged omission.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has not ruled on whether a TCCWNA claim may be
based on an omission. This district has addressed an analogous issue and held that the omission
of beverage prices from a restaurant menu is not actionable under the TCCWNA. Watkins v.
DineEquity, Inc., No. 11-cv-7182, 2012 WL 3776360 at *7..*9 (D.N.J. Aug. 29, 2012)
(Simandle, J.). The court based its decision in part on a plain reading of the statute’s phrase
“includes any provision,” reasoning that a “reading of ‘includes’ [that] also covers its inverse,
‘omits,’ impermissibly reads in more prohibited conduct than is provided by the statute, even
under a liberal construction approach.” Id. at *8. The court also looked to the legislative history
of the TCCWNA and noted that the bill’s “Sponsor’s Statement included no examples of
deceptive omissions that were envisioned as falling within the scope of the statute.” Id. The

4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CLOSE

Watkins decision was affirmed by the Third Circuit in a non-precedential opinion, which held
that the “TCCWNA encompasses only illegal provisions in writings covered by the statute, and
does not make actionable omissions.” Watkins v. DineEquily, Inc., 591 F. App’x 132, 133 (3d
Cir. 2014). By comparison, federal courts have allowed a TCCWNA claims where a defendant
“did not merely omit required disclosures[ but] also disclosed.

.

.

information in an inappropriate

manner.” Fosey v. NJR Clean Energy Ventures Corp., No. 14-cv-6833, 2015 WL 6561236 at *14
(D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2015).
Plaintiffs claim is entirely based on an alleged omission. Compi.

¶J 48-5 8. The

complaint makes no allegation that any offending provision was included in the contract, nor
does it allege that required information was disclosed in an inappropriate manner. Plaintiffs
TCCWNA claim does not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, and Defendant’s
motion to dismiss that claim is granted.
The Court will also grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs redundant claim for a
declaratory judgment. “It is settled law that, as a procedural remedy, the federal rules respecting
declaratory judgment actions, apply in diversity cases.” Federal Kemper Ins. Co. v. Rauscher,
807 F.2d 345, 352 (3d Cir. 1987). District courts “possess discretion in determining whether and
when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise
satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites.” Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282
(1995). Plaintiffs request for a declaratory judgment is based on the same allegations as his
TCCWNA claim. See Compl.

¶J 113-123 (“Plaintiff(s) and the class hereby seek a declaratory

judgment declaring as illegal the dealer’s TCCWNA violations that are the subject of count 1 of
this complaint.”). Plaintiffs Count Two is subsumed by Count One, which the Court has already

5

CLOSE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
dismissed. The Court will not exercise its discretion to entertain Plaintiffs request for a
declaratory judgment.
CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. An
appropriate order follows.

Date: june2L, 2016

United States Senior District Judge

6