GUNDELL v. SLEEPY'S, LLC
3:15-cv-07365
| D.N.J. | Nov 30, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Gundell ordered a Tempur‑Pedic Ergo Plus adjustable mattress base from Sleepy’s on May 24, 2015; delivery was scheduled and made on or before the promised date.
- After delivery Gundell claimed the base was incompatible with his mattress and non‑conforming; he later settled with Tempur‑Pedic and received a payment.
- The sales invoice delivered with the order contained the statutorily required boldface delivery and refund/inspection language from the New Jersey Furniture Delivery Regulations (FDR).
- Gundell sued in federal court asserting three claims in the Third Amended Complaint: (Count I) violations of the Truth‑in‑Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (TCCWNA); (Count II) a request for declaratory judgment under the UDJA that certain invoice provisions are void; and (Count III) violations of the FDR and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).
- Defendants Sleepy’s and Mattress Firm moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment as to Counts I and III and denied it as to Count II because defendants did not brief that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sleepy’s violated the FDR/CFA by delivering a non‑conforming base or using unlawful refund/no‑cancellation language (Count III) | The delivered base was incompatible/non‑conforming and defendants’ conduct violated FDR and thus the CFA | Delivered item matched the sales contract and invoice used the FDR‑required refund/cancellation language, so no violation | Court: No FDR/CFA violation because the delivered base matched the contract and the invoice contained the required statutory language; summary judgment for defendants on Count III |
| Whether plaintiff is an “aggrieved consumer” under TCCWNA based on invoice language (Count I) | Plaintiff contends the invoice language invaded his statutory rights and makes him aggrieved under Spade | Defendants contend plaintiff suffered no cognizable harm and the contract did not contain the prohibited ‘‘no refunds’’/‘‘all sales final’’ language | Court: Not an aggrieved consumer—invoice complied with FDR language and delivery conformed—so summary judgment for defendants on Count I |
| Whether declaratory relief should be granted to void limitation/refund provisions in the invoice (Count II) | Plaintiff seeks a declaration that limitation of liability and refund provisions are void as against statutes/public policy | Defendants sought dismissal of the complaint but did not address Count II in their moving brief | Court: Denied defendants’ motion as to Count II because defendants failed to meet their burden by briefing that claim; claim survives at summary judgment stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504 (defines "aggrieved consumer" under TCCWNA and examples of cognizable harm)
- Wright v. Bank of America, N.A., 456 N.J. Super. 328 (application of Spade examples regarding aggrievement)
- Whelan v. N.J. Power & Light Co., 212 A.2d 136 (UDJA authorizes declaratory actions to resolve contract construction/validity)
- Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271 (summary judgment procedural standards in Third Circuit)