GOVINDA v. SUNTUITY SOLAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
3:22-cv-06964
| D.N.J. | May 1, 2025Background
- Plaintiff solicited bids for solar panel installation and agreed in writing to proceed with Defendants based on a specific offer and financing terms.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants never finalized a contract but proceeded with installation, then secured fraudulent financing by forging her signature on a loan agreement.
- The forged financing contract had higher payments and interest than the agreed-upon deal and included other inconsistencies (wrong name, fake email, unwanted arbitration clause).
- Plaintiff was subjected to an additional $33,139 of debt over what was agreed upon, under terms she did not approve.
- Defendants initially participated in litigation, but both eventually ceased communications, failed to retain counsel, and defaulted, prompting Plaintiff to seek a default judgment specifically on her New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) claim.
- The Court granted default judgment as to liability but required further evidence before ruling on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NJCFA Liability | Defendants forged Plaintiff’s signature and induced her into a fraudulent, more expensive contract. | General denials and boilerplate affirmative defenses; no specific facts or defense presented. | Liability established for Plaintiff. |
| Damages under NJCFA (treble damages) | Entitled to $33,139 loss trebled under NJCFA, due to fraud. | No substantive response; Defendants defaulted. | Denied pending submission of further evidence on amount of loss. |
| Jurisdiction and Service | Defendants were properly served; court has federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. | No challenge. | Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction. |
| Appropriateness of Default Judgment | No prejudicial delay; Defendants have no meritorious defense; Plaintiff prejudiced by inability to recover without default. | No response; failed to obtain counsel or appear in court. | Default judgment (as to liability) appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178 (3d Cir. 1984) (entry of default judgment is discretionary and not favored)
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 647 A.2d 454 (N.J. 1994) (regulatory violations can be per se violations of NJCFA)
- Allen v. V & A Bros., 26 A.3d 430 (N.J. 2011) (affirmative acts of deception violate NJCFA)
- United Cmtys., LLC v. Hallowell Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 5880295 (D.N.J. 2012) (elements for a NJCFA claim)
- Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) (allegations relating to damages must be proven even after default)