DepoLink Court Reporting & Litigation Support Services v. Rochman
430 N.J. Super. 325
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- DepoLink provided court reporting services; defendant Rochman, an attorney, used these services for depositions in a Law Division action.
- The deposition transcript order form stated payment terms: net 30 days and 1.5% monthly late fee; COD could be demanded for out-of-state firms without payment history.
- Plaintiff invoiced on July 22, 2010; defendant received transcripts July 27, 2010, retained them, and refused to pay.
- Collection agency Johnson, Morgan & White was engaged but unsuccessful in collecting the debt.
- Defendant alleged no negotiation or agreement to the terms; collection efforts followed, leading to a Law Division suit filed October 2011 and a final April 2, 2012 summary judgment against defendant for the transcript costs.
- Defendant’s counterclaims and a third-party complaint against the collection agency were dismissed, and the court found the COD provision allowed COD payment regardless of defendant’s status as an in-state attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA applicability to a business/debt by a sole proprietor | Agency argues debt falls within consumer FDCPA scope | Debt is business-related; not a consumer debt | FDCPA claim properly dismissed |
| Common law fraud viability | Fraud allegations show deceptive collection | Lack of reliance and damages | Dismissed for lack of proof of reliance and damages |
| CFA applicability to debt collection | CFA applies to alleged unfair practices in sale of services | CFA applies to condo, not debt collection | CFA inapplicable; no ascertainable loss shown |
| Ascertainable loss under CFA and standing | Damages to be determined by evidence of loss | No payment made and no causal loss shown | No ascertainable loss; CFA claim fails |
| Procedural/summary judgment procedure | Standard summary judgment applicable | Oral argument requested; discovery incomplete | Summary judgment appropriate; no error in procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodges v. Sasil Corp., 189 N.J. 210 (N.J. 2007) (FDCPA scope; consumer debt definition; relevant standard)
- Slenk v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 236 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2001) (sole proprietor not necessarily a consumer under FDCPA)
- Beaton v. Reynolds, Ridings, Vogt & Morgan, P.L.L.C., 986 F. Supp. 1360 (W.D. Okla. 1998) (FDCPA consumer debt interpretation; critique of Sluys)
- Quigley v. Esquire Deposition Serv., 400 N.J. Super. 494 (App. Div. 2008) (CFA coverage of deposition services; 'merchandise' includes services)
- Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 183 N.J. 234 (N.J. 2005) (ascertainable loss requirement under CFA; damage must be measurable)
- Weinberg v. Sprint Corp., 173 N.J. 233 (N.J. 2002) (CFA standing and damages framework; ascertainable loss)
- Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582 (N.J. 1997) (definitions under CFA; consumer transactions)
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (N.J. 1994) (CFA remedial construction; liberal stance)
- Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga. v. Tennesen, 390 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 2007) (CFA regulatory provisions; strict liability)