MARY L. WALKER V. ROUTE 22 NISSAN, INC. AND CARMELO
GIUFFRE, ET AL
A-2942-08T2 08-31-10
This appeal involves a class action filed by plaintiff
under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). We affirm the
court's decision to decertify the class, to grant summary
judgment finding defendant liable under the CFA and TCCWNA under
plaintiff's remaining personal claims, to award plaintiff
compensatory damages under the CFA, and to impose a civil
penalty on defendant under the TCCWNA.
We reverse the court's award of counsel fees under the CFA
because the court determined the reasonable hourly rate
plaintiff's counsel was entitled to receive based on the judge's
personal experiences. We thus remand for the court to determine
a reasonable hourly rate after making the findings required
under Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 337 (1995). We also
reverse the court's decision to enhance plaintiff's counsel's
lodestar by forty-five percent and remand for the court to
reconsider whether a fee enhancement is warranted after applying
the factors identified by the United States Supreme Court in
Perdue v. Kenny A., ____ U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1669, 176
L. Ed. 2d 494, 501-02 (2010).
