Maniscalco v. Brother International (USA) Corp.
709 F.3d 202
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Huryk, a South Carolina resident, purchased a Brother 3220C MFC in 2003 with a New Jersey-drafted Limited Warranty and User Manual.
- Huryk sued in a putative NJCFA class action alleging concealment of two latent defects (ME41 and ink-purging) by BIC/BIL.
- District Court granted summary judgment, applying New Jersey choice-of-law rules and holding SC law controlled; NJCFA claim dismissed.
- BIC’s alleged misrepresentations originated at BIL in Japan and were conveyed via the warranty/manual; some conduct also linked to New Jersey.
- The court considered Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 148 and found multiple contacts in South Carolina favored SC law; NJ law would not support a nationwide class action.
- Huryk appeals, arguing NJCFA should apply or, alternatively, that NJ law governs due to significant New Jersey conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state law governs the NJCFA claim? | Huryk argues New Jersey law should apply. | BIC argues South Carolina law applies under Restatement §148. | South Carolina law applies. |
| Whether Restatement §148(2) factors favor SC over NJ for choice of law | Reliance and where representations were received favor NJ. | Factors weigh in favor of SC due to place of reliance, receipt, and tangible subject matter. | §148(2) factors strongly favor South Carolina. |
| Whether §148(1) presumption should apply | Representations were directed to the plaintiff in SC, triggering §148(1). | Omissions emanated from NJ/Japan; §148(1) not controlling. | §148(2) applied; §148(1) did not govern. |
| Did the district court properly resolve the choice-of-law before addressing the merits? | NJ law would apply to the NJCFA claim. | SC law should govern under §148 and §6 Restatement analysis. | Yes; district court properly applied choice-of-law analysis and granted summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co. Inc., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (forum state's choice-of-law controls in diversity cases)
- Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d 453 (N.J. 2008) (two-step most-significant-relationship test)
- Thabault v. Chait, 541 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2008) (plenary review of choice-of-law determinations)
- In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation, 257 F.R.D. 46 (D.N.J. 2009) (discusses §148 factors and state interests in class/consumer claims)
- Arlandson v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2011) (applies §148(2) where reliance/effects occur in home state)
- Fink v. Ricoh Corp., 839 A.2d 942 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2003) (home-state law considerations in consumer actions)