Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

121 JUAN PENA and MILAGROS PENA v. JOSE GOMEZ -- rank: 510

... may bring an action . . . in any court of competent jurisdiction. [N.J.S.A. 56:8-19.] 'Thus, to state a claim under the CFA, a plaintiff ... reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit.' N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. A-1089-18T4 8 'An 'unlawful practice' contravening the CFA ... hold pursuant to the fee-shifting provision of the CFA ( N.J.S.A. 56:8-19) that plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. See Delta ...

docket:	a1089-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-02-07
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	19856

122 VADIM MELNYCHUK v. MOSHE'S AUTO REPAIR CORP -- rank: 510

... miscarriage of justice. The phrase "ascertainable loss" comes directly from N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. "Ascertainable" is used in its standard dictionary meaning as "quantifiable ...

docket:	a5367-13
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-10-01
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	44944

123 MARK NEJMEH v. DOUG FORBES -- rank: 507

... fees and costs, plaintiff does not dispute the mandate of N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 that, in addition to ascertainable losses, "the court shall also ...

docket:	a1714-07
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2008-11-10
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	47119

124 UNION INK CO., INC., et al. v. AT&T CORP., et al. -- rank: 507

... a victim of consumer fraud must prove an "ascertainable loss," N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, but that requirement has been broadly defined as embracing more ...

docket:	A0804-00
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2002-06-28
status:	published
citation:	352 N.J. Super. 617 801 A.2d 361
Document Size:	75703

125 DEBRA DUGAN v. TGI FRIDAY'S, INC -- rank: 505

... Yacht Sales, Inc. , 110 N.J. 464 , 472-73 (1988)); N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. An ascertainable loss is "a definite, certain and measurable loss ...

docket:	a3098-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-10-25
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	47596

126 VALLEY NATIONAL BANK v. RICHARD F. ENDERLEY -- rank: 505

... are entitled to attorney's fees under the CFA, specifically N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. This statute provides: Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss ... 2006 represented fees required to be paid to defendants under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. Moreover, our decision in Tanksley , is readily distinguishable from this ... the mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 should include those incurred in satisfying the judgment. Id. at ... that defendants had no right to attorney's fees under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. Similarly, the judge did not err in finding that defendants ...

docket:	a4408-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-06-27
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	25409

127 Liberty Insurance Corp. v. Techdan -- rank: 505

... an ultimate outcome charge advising the jury, in keeping with N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, that any award of compensatory damages under the CFA would ...

docket:	a-52-21
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2023-02-15
status:
citation:
Document Size:	88191

128 YOEL ROMERO v. GOLD STAR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, -- rank: 502

... Reed Co., LLC, 203 N.J. 496, 521 (2010) (citing N.J.S.A. 56:8-19). 'An 'unlawful practice' contravening the CFA may arise from (1 ...

docket:	a0379-20
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-06-24
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	63916

129 ALEX J. KNELLER v. NARAYON HOSJ GANESAN, et al. -- rank: 499

... of " the action or omission in violation of the CFA. N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 (emphasis added). Plaintiff asserts that as a result of NJM ...

docket:	A0928-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2006-12-20
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	55045

130 L.J. ZUCCA, INC v. ALLEN BROS. WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS INC. -- rank: 499

... or property" from the unlawful conduct prohibited by that law. N.J.S.A. 56:8 19 (emphasis added). It permits only the Attorney General to maintain ...

docket:	a2723-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-01-09
status:	published
citation:	434 N.J.Super. 60 82 A.3d 274
Document Size:	100123

131 Thomas Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc. -- rank: 497

... 164, 166 (App. Div. 1987)). From matters involving consumer fraud, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, to instances of discriminatory treatment, 113 N.J. at 598 ...

docket:	a-57-08
court:	supreme
decided:	2009-10-14
status:
citation:	200 N.J. 348 981 A.2d 1267
Document Size:	32992

132 LOUIS SICKLES v. CABOT CORPORATION, et al. -- rank: 497

... result of an unlawful practice as defined by the act. N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. The CFA declares the following to be an unlawful practice ...

docket:	A3129-04
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2005-07-07
status:	published
citation:	379 N.J. Super. 100 877 A.2d 267
Document Size:	88229

133 Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Utility Co. -- rank: 489

... jury trial existed for litigants who commenced an action under N.J.S.A. 56:8-19, another provision of the CFA, against a company that provided ...

docket:	a-96-10
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2013-01-24
status:
citation:
Document Size:	121439

134 MULTIVERSE, INC v. REN SCARAB -- rank: 489

... reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit. [ N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 (emphasis added).] To establish a prima facie case under the ...

docket:	a2835-07
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2009-01-20
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	40279

135 DAVID PREZANT v. PETER JEGOU -- rank: 489

... bargain bars them from recovering fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19. In this case, the Jegous produced evidence sufficient to permit ... sufficient to reach the jury, fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 should be awarded upon a finding of an unlawful practice ... under Thiedemann , an award of fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 is appropriate in this case. Because our decision to vacate ...

docket:	a1935-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-06-23
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	57979