Three More Supreme Court Grants of Certification Today

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification in three new cases. All of them are civil appeals.

In Robey v. SPARC Group, LLC, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Are plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant falsely advertised clothing as being discounted when it had never been sold in those stores at a higher price sufficient to show that plaintiffs suffered an ‘ascertainable loss’ under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, or to qualify as an ‘aggrieved consumer’ under the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-17, and can plaintiffs seek injunctive relief?” In an opinion reported at 474 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 2023), and discussed here, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.

Cuello v. Ramos, a sidewalk liabilty case, presents this question: “Do residential property owners have a duty to maintain sidewalks abutting their property, and should courts distinguish between natural and artificial conditions as in Deberjeois v. Schneider, 254 N.J. Super. 694 (Law Div. 1991)?” Affirming the Law Division, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, upheld summary judgment for defendants. The panel stated that “[i]n essence, plaintiffs effectively ask us to overrule Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, 87 N.J. 146, 153 (1981),” among other things, something that the Appellate Division stated it lacked the power to do. Whether the Supreme Court will do so, continuing its history of altering sidewalk liability law (for example, Stewart itself overruled Yanhko v. Fane, 70 N.J. 528 (1976)), remains to be seen.

Finally, here is the question presented in Comprehensive Neurosurgical, P.C. v. The Valley Hospital: “Should plaintiffs’ claim that defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing have been dismissed because defendant did not breach its bylaws, did defendant waive the attorney-client privilege for communications about the White Paper by relying on the White Paper, and did plaintiffs’ counsel’s statements during summation about transferring patients, when contrary evidence was excluded from trial, require a new trial?” In a 100-page unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel, the Appellate Division affirmed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs for over $26 million.