UMUT TURKDOGAN VS. MEDISPA OF SHREWSBURY LLC(DC-6054-14 AND DC-4870-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3564-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Umut (son) and Engin (father) sued after both suffered laser burns during hair-removal procedures at Medispa; cosmeticians are statutorily prohibited from using lasers.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendant Dr. Joseph Fretta was held out as Medispa’s medical director and either (a) failed to supervise (CFA and negligence claims) or (b) allowed Medispa to falsely advertise his role (CFA).
- Several Medispa defendants settled pre-trial; Fretta was the sole remaining defendant at trial.
- The trial court found Fretta was not actually the medical director but had allowed Medispa to hold him out as such, concluded he violated the Consumer Fraud Act, and awarded trebled damages (reduced to 20% liability) to Umut only.
- The court awarded $590.96 judgment (based on Umut’s damages as calculated at trial) and separately awarded $7,000 in attorney’s fees; Fretta moved for reconsideration of the fee award and appealed the denial.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the fee award and the CFA liability finding in part, but remanded for the trial court to address (1) whether Fretta owed a common‑law duty of care (negligence) and (2) to correct Umut’s trebled-and-reduced damage arithmetic to $630.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Fretta liable under the Consumer Fraud Act for allowing Medispa to hold him out as medical director? | Fretta allowed false representation of medical oversight; Umut relied on it and suffered injury. | Fretta denied being medical director or authorizing any representation. | Court found Fretta permitted the misrepresentation and liable under the CFA as to Umut. |
| Were attorney’s fees awarded to plaintiffs reasonable? | $7,000 is appropriate for prevailing party under CFA fee-shifting. | Fee award was excessive relative to Fretta’s limited liability ($590.96). | Appellate court affirmed $7,000 fee award; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did court err by failing to make findings on Engin’s claims and negligence? | Plaintiffs argued court overlooked Engin and negligence findings. | Fretta generally disputed claims. | Appellate court agreed trial court failed to address Engin and negligence; remanded to determine duty, breach, and proximate cause. |
| Was the damages arithmetic correct for Umut? | Plaintiffs noted calculation errors. | Fretta did not successfully challenge substantive award beyond fees. | Appellate court corrected Umut’s award on remand to $630 (trebled then reduced 20%). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (lodestar method and trial court discretion in fee awards)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (hours not necessarily reasonable; exclude excessive or unrelated time)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177 (exclude hours on unsuccessful or distinct claims in fee calculation)
- Girandola v. Allentown, 208 N.J. Super. 437 (App. Div. 1986) (importance of trial court findings for appellate review)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (duty analysis framework)