ROBERT MELLET VS. AQUASID, LLC, ETC.(L-516-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4438-15T1

Background

Plaintiffs Robert Mellet and Betty Evans entered 20‑month, monthly‑installment health‑club membership contracts with Aquasid (Future Fitness) and later stopped paying; defendant continued charging fees and sought collection.
Plaintiffs sued individually and sought class certification for members who signed on or after April 9, 2008, alleging violations of RISA, the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), the Health Club Services Act (HCSA), and TCCWNA based on contract fees and an exculpatory clause.
The trial court denied class certification and granted summary judgment for defendant, holding RISA did not apply, the exculpatory clause was enforceable under TCCWNA principles, and CFA claims dependent on RISA failed; the court made no explicit finding on whether total fees appeared on the contract front page under HCSA.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed summary judgment de novo and exercised original jurisdiction to resolve the HCSA front‑page disclosure question because the record was adequate.
The panel affirmed: RISA does not cover these membership contracts because they do not convey ownership of goods; the exculpatory clause was facially enforceable; the contracts did display total monthly payment information on the first page, satisfying HCSA; CFA and related claims failed; class‑certification issues were not reached.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of RISA to gym membership installment contracts	RISA covers services and should apply to health‑club installment contracts; fees violated statutory caps	RISA governs installment contracts that contemplate eventual ownership of goods; gym memberships are for use, not ownership, so RISA does not apply	RISA does not apply to these membership agreements; Perez recognized liberal construction but RISA targets agreements akin to sales/ownership instruments; affirmed
Enforceability of exculpatory clause under TCCWNA	Clause violates TCCWNA because it waives consumers’ clearly established rights and is overly broad (citing Bosland)	Clause is similar to valid waivers in Stelluti and does not bar ordinary duties or slip‑and‑fall liability as in Walters	Clause is facially enforceable: it does not broadly waive exercise‑related injuries nor eliminate the club’s ordinary duty of care; TCCWNA challenge fails
HCSA requirement that total payment appear conspicuously on first page	Contracts failed to show total payment on first page as required by N.J.S.A. 56:8‑42(b)	Contracts were reviewed by the Attorney General and did list total monthly payment information on the first page	Appellate Division exercised original jurisdiction and found the contracts did display total monthly payment on the front page; HCSA claim fails
Class certification and summary judgment procedural issues	Plaintiffs argued class certification prerequisites were met and trial court erred considering defendant’s cross‑motion on short notice	Trial court properly denied class certification due to lack of predominance; plaintiffs had opportunity to respond to cross‑motion	Because all individual claims fail, class certification denial was not reached on the merits; trial court did not err on handling the cross‑motion

Key Cases Cited

Perez v. Rent-A-Center, 186 N.J. 188 (N.J. 2006) (interpreting RISA and instructing liberal, consumer‑protective construction while focusing on agreements akin to sales/ownership)
Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (N.J. 2009) (TCCWNA prohibits contractual waivers of consumers’ rights under the Act)
Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, 203 N.J. 286 (N.J. 2010) (upholding limited exculpatory waivers for gym injuries arising from inherent risks of exercise)
Walters v. YMCA, 437 N.J. Super. 111 (App. Div. 2014) (distinguishing enforceable waivers from those that eviscerate ordinary duty of care or bar liability for non‑exercise slip‑and‑fall injuries)