Suarez v. Eastern International College
428 N.J. Super. 10
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Shanita Suarez, a non-traditional student, sued Eastern International College (Micro Tech) under CFA and common law fraud for alleged misrepresentations at enrollment.
- Plaintiff claimed she was promised employment prospects and earnings upon graduation as an ultrasound technologist, which would require ARDMS certification.
- Micro Tech was not CAH-HEP accredited, making ARDMS eligibility contingent on additional clinical experience not available to Suarez.
- Plaintiff alleges that she could not obtain ARDMS eligibility or employment due to Micro Tech's lack of accreditation and misrepresentations about employability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on CFA and common law fraud; the appellate court reversed on CFA and affirmed on common law fraud, and rejected the learned professional defense.
- Evidence included: admissions/recruitment communications, program curriculum, ARDMS prerequisites, and the role of third-party employers in employability after graduation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFA claim survived summary judgment | CFA violation via omissions and affirmative misrepresentations | No CFA violation; claims fall under puffery or lack material misrepresentation | CFA claim reversed; genuine issues of material fact exist |
| Whether Brown's statements were actionable misrepresentations | Brown knowingly misrepresented employability and certification | Statements were aspirational; not facts misrepresented | Affirmative misrepresentation potential; issue for jury |
| Application of learned professional exemption | Exemption should bar CFA claim | Exemption applies if truly regulated professional activity | Exemption not applicable |
| Common law fraud viability | Statements about employment/earnings were false and relied on | Statements were opinions/puffery; no reliance on false facts | Common law fraud claim properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582 (N.J. 1997) (elements of common law fraud; affirmative misrepresentation may not require intent to deceive)
- Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2 (N.J. 1994) (CFA unlawful acts include affirmative deception without proving intent to mislead)
- Vagias v. Woodmont Properties, L.L.C., 384 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2006) (omission can be actionable under CFA if material and capable of misleading)
- Jacobsen v. Columbia Univ., 53 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 1959) (puffery vs. misrepresentation; aspirational goals generally not actionable, but not always)