Search Site

Supreme Court Rules Victory Under CFA Does Not Guarantee Award of Attorney Fees

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled in Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC, et al. that a prevailing Plaintiff is not entitled to receive an award of attorney fees under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) if they cannot prove an ascertainable loss relating to the violation. It was a decision that slightly weakened New Jersey’s consumer fraud protections, which are amongst the strongest in the country.

The case involved a claim by a homeowner against a home improvement contractor regarding the installation of a swimming pool. The contractor failed to include a start or end date for the work in the contract as required by New Jersey law, and in violation of the CFA. However, the homeowner could not prove that they had suffered any damages as a result of the violation. For this reason the trial court decided not to award Plaintiff with attorney’s fees under the CFA. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the decision, and the Appellate Division reversed, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees simply by the mere fact that they were able to prove a violation under the CFA. The Defendant contractor then petitioned the Supreme Court, which was granted.

The Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that in addition to establishing a CFA violation, a private plaintiff must demonstrate that the violation resulted in an “ascertainable loss of moneys or property, real or personal.” If a plaintiff demonstrates both a violation and a resulting ascertainable loss, the CFA provides broad relief that may include an award of attorneys’ fees. However, when a trial court grants a defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ CFA claim due to the fact that no bona fide ascertainable loss claim exists within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, as they did here, then plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees.

Here at Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich our attorneys are well-versed in Consumer Fraud actions and have assisted many clients through the appeals process. Our attorneys are experienced with complex litigation, including issues that involve redevelopment, hazardous site remediation, underground storage tanks, and regulatory matters.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Our Attorneys

In The Media

  • On the Run: Runner/lawyer DeBord out to protect the environment she loves

    Bucks County Herald, January 4, 2024

    When Brittany DeBord runs along the Delaware River canal towpath or on the trails of Tyler State Park, she doesn’t just appreciate the natural beauty of the...

    Read More
  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form