GUNDELL v. SLEEPY'S, LLC et al

Filing 146

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 129 Motion for Reconsideration; Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than 7/7/2023; 131 is Stayed and the Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively terminate the motion pending the resolution of the dispositive matters related to Count II. Signed by Judge Robert Kirsch on 6/26/2023. (jal, )

Case 3:15-cv-07365-RK-DEA Document 146 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1941

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-7365 (RK) (DEA)
V.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

SLEEPY'S,LLC,etaL,
Defendants.

KIRSCH, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs and Defendants' motions for
reconsideration of the Court's rulings with respect to Count II of Plaintiffs Third Amended
Complaint ("TAG," ECF No. 55). Defendants' motion (ECF No. 129) seeks the Court to
reconsider the November 30, 2022 Opinion and Order issued by the Honorable Judge Zahid N.
Quraishi, denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 114 & 115). Plaintiffs
motion (ECF No. 131) seeks the Court to reconsider Judge Quraishi's December 6, 2022 Opinion

and Order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (ECF Nos. 117 & 118). The Court
has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the motions without oral argument
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 8 (b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b).
As a preliminary matter, on June 13, 2023, this Court issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs motions seeking reconsideration of Judge Quraishi's denial of class certification and
grant of Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and III of the TAG. (ECF Nos.

142 & 143.) Count II is thus Plaintiffs sole live claim.

Case 3:15-cv-07365-RK-DEA Document 146 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1942

Plaintiffs complaint arises from alleged contractual violations that prevented him from
receiving a full refund on a mattress base he bought from Defendants. Count I sought certification

of an injunctive or damages class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3)
for Defendants' alleged violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
("TCCWNA"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 et seq. The alleged violations in Count I stem from Defendants'
inclusion of "Limitation of Liability" and "no refunds" provisions in its sales contracts that
Plaintiff argues contravene statutory provisions within the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 etseq., the Furniture Delivery Regulations ("FDR"), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-

5.1 etseq., and the TCCWNA. (TAG ^ 53-83.) Count II seeks the Court to certify a Rule 23(b)(2)
class and render a declaratory judgment pursuant to NJ.S.A. 2A: 16-50 et seq. that the same
"Limitation of Liability" provisions in its sales contracts are null and void because they deprive
Plaintiff and putative class members of their rights to seek redress for violations of the TCCWNA,

CFA, and FDR. (TAG ^ 84-94.) Count III sought to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and render
declaratory relief that Defendants violated the CFA and FDR, and to provide injunctive relief
requiring Defendants to provide notice to the class describing options for remedies under the
respective statutes. (TAG ^ 95-118.)
Judge Quraishi granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts I and III. In
doing so, the Court found that Defendants had "strictly complied with the language required by
the FDR and [they] are therefore not in violation of the CFA." (ECF No. 114 at 9.) The Court
further found that "Plaintiff cannot proceed with his TCCWNA claim" because he was not an
"aggrieved consumer" and because "the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant Sleepy's does

1 A more fulsome recitation of the facts and procedural history can be found in this Court's Opinion denying

Plaintiff's M:otion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 142), Judge Shipp's Opinion denying Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 66), and Judge Quraishi's Opinions with respect to class certification (ECF No.117)
and summary judgment (ECF No. 114).

Case 3:15-cv-07365-RK-DEA Document 146 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1943

not have any prohibited language such as 'all sales final,' no cancellations/ or 'no refunds,' as
enumerated in Spade." (Id. at 11 (citing Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504, 516 (N.J.
2018)).) Judge Quraishi denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count II,
however, on the grounds that Defendants "ma[d]e no arguments specifically directed to Count
Two" and therefore failed to meet their burden of persuasion. {Id. at 12.)
On reconsideration, this Court found no basis to disturb Judge Quraishi's findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and therefore denied Plaintiff's motion as to Counts I and III. (ECF No.
142.) This Court's Opinion did not discuss the parties' motions for reconsideration as to Count II.
Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy" to be granted "sparingly." United States v.
Cobum, No. 19-00120, 2022 WL 874458, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2022) (quoting M/ WM^. Inc. v.
Corn. Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996)). "The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration . . . is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 602 F.3d 237, 251 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quotation marks omitted) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe ex r el. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a movant must show
"(I) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence that was not available when
the court issued its order, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 182, 190 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Defendants argue that reconsideration of the Court's denial of summary judgment as to
Count II is warranted because Judge Quraishi's opinion granting summary judgment dismissed
Plaintiffs substantive claims under the FDR, CFA, and TCCWNA. (ECF Nos. 129 at 5; 133 at 24.) In declining to dismiss Count II as well, Defendants argue that Judge Quraishi erred as a matter

Case 3:15-cv-07365-RK-DEA Document 146 Filed 06/26/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1944

of law because Count II no longer contains an unresolved substantive claim through which to seek
declaratory relief. (M) Plaintiff, thus far, appears to oppose Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Count II.
Here, reconsideration of Judge Quraishi's denial of Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is not warranted. In seeking a blanket dismissal of the entire TAG, Defendants' moving
papers did not adequately address either how Count II specifically should fail or, alternatively,
how Count II cannot stand without Counts I or III. (See generally ECF No. 108-1.) When offered
the opportunity to respond more specifically to this issue after Plaintiffs noted that "Defendants
raise no argument as to Count II" (ECF No. 109 at 26), Defendants' Reply abstained from parsing
out how each argument related to each Count of the TAG. (See generally ECF No. 110.) Judge
Quraishi therefore did not commit a clear error of law in refusing to grant summary judgment as
to an issue that was inadequately briefed.
Defendants' argument is not without merit, however. Plaintiffs Counts are
incontrovertibly overlapping, which leads the Court to question what, if anything, remains as to
Count H in light of Judge Quraishi's rulings on Counts I and III. Neither party — not Defendants
on summary judgment or reconsideration, or Plaintiffs in opposition to Defendants' motions —
has sufficiently briefed this issue.

IT IS THEREFORE, on this 26th day of June, 2023, ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 129) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than July 7, 2023, as to
why Count II should not be dismissed given Judge Quraishi's rulings as to Counts

I and III; Defendant is to file any opposition by July 14, 2023; Plaintiff is to file
any reply by July 21, 2023.

Case 3:15-cv-07365-RK-DEA Document 146 Filed 06/26/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1945

3. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration on Judge Quraishi's denial of class

certification as to Count H (ECF No. 131) is STAYED and the Clerk of Court is
instructed to administratively terminate the motion pending the resolution of the
dispositive matters related to Count II.

ROBERT KlRSCH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 26, 2023