Fedor v. Nissan of North America, Inc.
432 N.J. Super. 303
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Two parallel appeals by consumers against Nissan, consolidated for this opinion, seeking repurchase relief under Magnuson-Moss Act and Lemon Law; cases involve Fedor and Ghandi, each purchasing a new vehicle; warranty directs use of BBB Auto Line before pursuing Magnuson-Moss remedies, but Lemon Law proceedings can proceed separately; BBB Auto Line excludes attorney’s fees in its awards; plaintiffs accepted Auto Line repurchase awards and proceeded with court actions; plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees under Magnuson-Moss Act and Lemon Law; trial court granted summary judgment denying fee claims; on appeal, court addresses whether fee-shifting is recoverable where informal dispute resolution was used; court ultimately affirms dismissal and rejects fee-shifting in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether informal dispute settlement precludes attorney’s fees | Fedor and Ghandi: fees must be awarded to prevailers. | Auto Line excludes attorney’s fees; no duty to award fees. | No mandatory fee award via Auto Line; fees not recoverable under Act. |
| Whether Lemon Law permits fee-shifting in informal procedures | Lemon Law requires fee-shifting for successful informal disputes. | Lemon Law does not mandate fees for Magnuson-Moss-based forums. | Lemon Law fee-shifting not universal; depends on forum and statutory text. |
| Whether BBB Auto Line’s compliance affects state-law fee rights | Fees should be available under state law despite Auto Line. | Statutory text allows forum-specific remedies; fees not guaranteed in Auto Line. | Statute allows separate paths; Auto Line not required to award fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. American Honda Motor Co., 186 N.J. 431 (N.J. 2006) (Magnuson-Moss aims to aid consumers; informs standard of warranty remedies)
- Poli v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169 (App.Div. 2002) (App.Div. discusses policy and scope of warranty remedies)
- DiVigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314 (App.Div. 2001) (Lemon Law remedies and procedural avenues; nonconformities)
- Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 183 N.J. 234 (N.J. 2005) (Lemon Law refund-and-replace framework; causation of repairs)