07-2-9448 Arena v. Liberty Towers Urban Renewal LLC, App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Plaintiffs Angelo and Katrina Arena appealed the Law Division’s order dismissing their complaint against defendant Liberty Towers Urban Renewal LLC. After defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiffs filed, and served, a notice of dismissal, voluntarily dismissing their claims against defendant. Sometime thereafter, the parties reached an amicable settlement. Apparently unaware of the voluntary dismissal and settlement, the Law Division granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and defendant submitted a letter of nonparticipation, stating that defendant would not participate and confirming that the parties entered into a comprehensive settlement. In light of the settlement of this matter, the appellate panel dismissed the appeal, reminding litigants that they had a duty to advise the court as expeditiously as possible of the potential settlement of a case.
09-2-9461 Hoffman v. Natural Factors Nutritional Prod. Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Plaintiff, who claimed that he was seeking a product to slow the progression of his osteoarthritis and reduce pain associated with that condition, purchased one jar of RX Omega-3 Factors Fish Oil, which was distributed by defendant. Contending that the fish oil was not a “pharmaceutical grade” product as advertised by defendant, he filed this action asserting claims for “unconscionable commercial practice,” “deception,” “fraud,” “false pretense, false promise and/or misrepresentation,” and “knowing concealment, suppression and/or omission of material facts under the Consumer Fraud Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The panel affirmed. Noting that plaintiff’s claimed loss was the difference in cost between defendant’s product and cheaper fish oil that was not “pharmaceutical grade,” and that case law had established that subjective assertions, without more, were insufficient to satisfy the ascertainable loss requirement that was expressly necessary for access to the CFA remedies, the panel found that plaintiff’s bare allegations failed to demonstrate that he suffered a quantifiable loss.
