737 Fed.Appx. 85 (3rd Cir. 2016), 16-1558, Spade v. Select Comfort Corp.

Docket Nº:16-1558
Citation:737 Fed.Appx. 85
Opinion Judge:SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:David SPADE and Katina Spade, h/w, individually and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellants v. SELECT COMFORT CORP., d/b/a Sleep Number; Leggett & Platt Inc.; John Doe Individuals and Businesses 1-20
Attorney:Lewis G. Adler, Esq., Woodbury, NJ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Karen A. Confoy, Esq., Christopher R. Kinkade, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Lawrenceville, NJ, Heidi A.O. Fisher, Esq., Andrew S. Hansen, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Steven A. Karg, I, Esq., Norris McLaughlin...
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 18, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 85

737 Fed.Appx. 85 (3rd Cir. 2016)

David SPADE and Katina Spade, h/w, individually and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellants

v.

SELECT COMFORT CORP., d/b/a Sleep Number; Leggett & Platt Inc.; John Doe Individuals and Businesses 1-20

No. 16-1558

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

November 18, 2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Editorial Note:

This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Page 86

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. No. 3-15-cv-01826), District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Lewis G. Adler, Esq., Woodbury, NJ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Karen A. Confoy, Esq., Christopher R. Kinkade, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Lawrenceville, NJ, Heidi A.O. Fisher, Esq., Andrew S. Hansen, Esq., Fox Rothschild, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee

Steven A. Karg, I, Esq., Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, Bridgewater, NJ, for Defendant

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION[*]

SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade brought a putative class action against Select Comfort Corporation, alleging that its sales contract violates the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:12-14. The District Court granted Select Comfort’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs appealed, and we certified two questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court that we viewed as determinative of this appeal. Based on the Supreme Court’s answer, which requires a plaintiff to show harm from the defendant’s TCCWNA violation, we will vacate and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.

I

Plaintiffs entered into furniture sales contracts that allegedly did not comply with certain New Jersey regulations.[1] The contract excluded allegedly required provisions2 and included allegedly prohibited

Page 87

phrases such as "all sales final" and "no returns will be authorized or accepted." App. 74.

Plaintiffs brought claims against Select Comfort for statutory damages under TCCWNA, predicated on violations of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs’s Delivery of Household Furniture and Furnishings Regulation ("Furniture Delivery Regulations"), N.J. Admin. Code § 13:45A-5. The Furniture Regulations identify language that must be included in any contract for household furniture by "any person who sells household furniture in or from the State of New Jersey or to any person located outside of the State of New Jersey who sells household furniture into" New Jersey. Id. § 13:45A-5.3(b).

The District Court granted Select Comfort’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Plaintiffs failed to allege a cause of action because the statute requires that a party must be aggrieved to bring a TCCWNA action and Plaintiffs did not allege that they were aggrieved. Plaintiffs appealed3 and our panel petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court, pursuant to N.J....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP