Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

A Class Action Plaintiff Must be a Member of the Class That He or She Seeks to Represent

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Feb 25, 2013 in Appellate Division, Class actions, Consumer protection, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Standards of review | 0 comments

Rosen v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 430 N.J. Super. 97 (App. Div. 2013).  The holding of this decision affirmed a defense motion to dismiss this putative class action case for failure to state a claim.  Plaintiff had bought a headset from defendant on an airline flight.  Defendant had stated at that time that the headset could be used on a future flight.  When plaintiff took another flight and tried to use the headset, however, he found that the headset was not compatible with the available jack.  As a result, plaintiff had to buy another headset.  Defendant required that headset purchases be made only with a credit or debit card, and defendant would not accept cash for the headset.  Defendant also insisted on cash when plaintiff tried to buy an alcoholic beverage while on board. 

Plaintiff sued, asserting that defendant had violated the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., in representing that the headset would be usable on future flights.  He also claimed that defendant’s “no cash” policy wrongfully discriminated against “low income individuals,” minors, and others who might not have credit cards.  Plaintiff himself did have a credit card, which he had used to pay for a baggage fee and for the headset on the prior flight.

The Law Division granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the case was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. §41713(b)(1).  That court also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for class certification.  On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed in an opinion by Judge Kennedy. 

The panel applied the standard of review that, on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 4:6-2(e), searches the Complaint for “the fundament of a claim,” even one that is presented in “obscure” fashion.  Judge Kennedy found that, even under that very forgiving standard, dismissal was appropriate due to preemption.  He also noted that defendant might have moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which would have implicated Rule 4:6-2(a) rather than Rule 4:6-2(e).  But since defendant had moved under Rule 4:6-2(e), the standards of that Rule applied.

The Airline Deregulation Act preempts any claim “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.”  Judge Kennedy determined that the headset and alcoholic beverage issues that plaintiff sought to raise related to “services.”  The panel observed that this broad perception of what is a “service” was the majority view in the federal courts.

Judge Kennedy went on to discuss plaintiff’s cross-motion for class certification.  That discussion was pure dictum since, as he noted, there was no need to address class certification given the panel’s holding that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the federal law.  Judge Kennedy found a class action improper “because plaintiff himself lacks standing as a member of the putative class.”  The putative class would have consisted of “unaccompanied minors, low income individuals and others who are not in possession of credit cards.”  Plaintiff did not fall into any of those categories since he did have a credit card.  Since he was not himself a member of the class, he lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of those who were class members.

No Responses to “A Class Action Plaintiff Must be a Member of the Class That He or She Seeks to Represent”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - [...] must be a member of the class that he seeks to represent is a settled one, as discussed here.  Judge…
  2. - Appellate Law NJ Blog - […] of that class testified that he had never received anything in writing from a debt collector.  A class representative…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress